goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sys on June 21, 2021, 03:21:13 PM
-
didn't want to make it too exotic with all sorts of options. so if you only want to tax unrealized gains for the utra-rich just answer yes and if you don't want to tax unrealized gains, but you want to disincentivize portfolio loans and end the step up in basis for heirs, just answer no, etc.
-
This is a foreign concept to me, but I don't see why it couldn't work.
Like, I'm open to the idea no one needs to have more than x million dollars. And I don't really care how that is accomplished.
-
I voted no. I would support a wealth tax, though, so I'm not entirely sure if I should have voted no.
-
I voted no. I would support a wealth tax, though, so I'm not entirely sure if I should have voted no.
you should not have voted no.
could someone who is inclined to vote no please vote yes to correct rage's vote?
-
I think taxing unrealized gains would be a pretty big barrier to entering the world of investments for the non-wealthy. The government already puts annual deposit limits on tax-advantaged accounts like traditional and Roth IRAs. :shakesfist:
-
I think taxing unrealized gains would be a pretty big barrier to entering the world of investments for the non-wealthy. The government already puts annual deposit limits on tax-advantaged accounts like traditional and Roth IRAs. :shakesfist:
It wouldn't have to apply to everyone.
-
I guess I have to ask why this question is posed as a zero sum proposal. Even basic income has variance on what's taxable and what's not. I don't think Nana dropping $500 on Daimler-Chrysler is the same as some CEO taking a $56 million annual salary in stock options that can't be taxed but leveraged into no interest or low interest loans to purchase consumer goods.
-
I guess I have to ask why this question is posed as a zero sum proposal.
because i didn't want to make 20 different options trying to account for every single poster's preferred tax policy.
afaik, right now we don't tax unrealized gains for any asset, at all, on the federal level. i tried to make clear with my initial comment that if you want to preserve that distinction you should vote no, regardless of whatever other reforms you might like to enact instead and if you would favor making unrealized capital gains taxable in any way, even if it's just one asset class and only for the richest person in the country, you should vote yes.
-
btw, i'm definitely not a tax expert, but i'd be really surprised if the value of grants of stock options aren't taxed as ordinary income.
-
I think taxing unrealized gains would be a pretty big barrier to entering the world of investments for the non-wealthy. The government already puts annual deposit limits on tax-advantaged accounts like traditional and Roth IRAs. :shakesfist:
It wouldn't have to apply to everyone.
Would you apply it based on net worth? That seems to make the most sense to me, but is that easy to conceal?
-
I guess I have to ask why this question is posed as a zero sum proposal.
because i didn't want to make 20 different options trying to account for every single poster's preferred tax policy.
afaik, right now we don't tax unrealized gains for any asset, at all, on the federal level. i tried to make clear with my initial comment that if you want to preserve that distinction you should vote no, regardless of whatever other reforms you might like to enact instead and if you would favor making unrealized capital gains taxable in any way, even if it's just one asset class and only for the richest person in the country, you should vote yes.
Well, there's the lone yes vote.
-
Well, there's the lone yes vote.
someone should have voted yes for rage too. people suck at following instructions.
-
Taxing unrealized gains seems really non material in the sense I'm not sure what is happening.
i don't follow.
-
I have no rough ridin' clue so I voted yes to help sys out
-
I have no rough ridin' clue so I voted yes to help sys out
thanks, seven.
-
Unrealized gains implies you have not consumed or altered your lifestyle due to the wealth (what other people value in what you own). So in a sense it doesn't exist to you yet obviously it allows a lot to happen.
i think that is called the wealth effect among normal people; seems like appropriate nomenclature for the very rich as well.
-
Taxing unrealized gains seems really non material in the sense I'm not sure what is happening.
i don't follow.
Unrealized gains implies you have not consumed or altered your lifestyle due to the wealth (what other people value in what you own). So in a sense it doesn't exist to you yet obviously it allows a lot to happen.
For most people yes. However, some get credit extended based on unrealized gains, that's very tangible.
-
Taxing unrealized gains seems really non material in the sense I'm not sure what is happening.
i don't follow.
Unrealized gains implies you have not consumed or altered your lifestyle due to the wealth (what other people value in what you own). So in a sense it doesn't exist to you yet obviously it allows a lot to happen.
For most people yes. However, some get credit extended based on unrealized gains, that's very tangible.
Do those credit extensions based on unrealized gains get taxed? Probably a dumb question and probably “no” - but it seems like that loophole ought to be shut.
-
Taxing unrealized gains seems really non material in the sense I'm not sure what is happening.
i don't follow.
Unrealized gains implies you have not consumed or altered your lifestyle due to the wealth (what other people value in what you own). So in a sense it doesn't exist to you yet obviously it allows a lot to happen.
For most people yes. However, some get credit extended based on unrealized gains, that's very tangible.
Do those credit extensions based on unrealized gains get taxed? Probably a dumb question and probably “no” - but it seems like that loophole ought to be shut.
Building consensus.
-
Taxing unrealized gains seems really non material in the sense I'm not sure what is happening.
i don't follow.
Unrealized gains implies you have not consumed or altered your lifestyle due to the wealth (what other people value in what you own). So in a sense it doesn't exist to you yet obviously it allows a lot to happen.
I think - not at all sure though - that this is the intent of the state enabled local intangibles tax in Kansas and other states. :dunno:
-
Taxing unrealized gains seems really non material in the sense I'm not sure what is happening.
i don't follow.
Unrealized gains implies you have not consumed or altered your lifestyle due to the wealth (what other people value in what you own). So in a sense it doesn't exist to you yet obviously it allows a lot to happen.
For most people yes. However, some get credit extended based on unrealized gains, that's very tangible.
Do those credit extensions based on unrealized gains get taxed? Probably a dumb question and probably “no” - but it seems like that loophole ought to be shut.
Building consensus.
Wow - DQ and Tortuga, what a force agreeing on some political idea.
-
Taxing unrealized gains seems really non material in the sense I'm not sure what is happening.
i don't follow.
Unrealized gains implies you have not consumed or altered your lifestyle due to the wealth (what other people value in what you own). So in a sense it doesn't exist to you yet obviously it allows a lot to happen.
For most people yes. However, some get credit extended based on unrealized gains, that's very tangible.
Do those credit extensions based on unrealized gains get taxed? Probably a dumb question and probably “no” - but it seems like that loophole ought to be shut.
A definitive NO
-
would unrealized losses be credited?
-
A wealth tax can be just that: a tax on wealth. It doesn’t need to be considered a tax on gains or losses, but simply: was your average net worth over the past year above $200 ($500?) million? If yes, you get an over the top tax based on whatever the number was above the threshold.
Repeat year after year, even if you’re technically taxing the same dollars. That’s it.
-
would unrealized losses be credited?
yes, of course. but i would guess probably not refundable.
-
Do those credit extensions based on unrealized gains get taxed?
tax would be paid when the assets guaranteeing the loan are sold to repay the loan.
-
Do those credit extensions based on unrealized gains get taxed?
tax would be paid when the assets guaranteeing the loan are sold to repay the loan.
Not good enough
-
tax would be paid when the assets guaranteeing the loan are sold to repay the loan.
Not good enough
why not?
-
tax would be paid when the assets guaranteeing the loan are sold to repay the loan.
Not good enough
why not?
Because it's an end around from paying taxes on what should be income. Those sold assets only represent, in nearly all cases, a small fraction of the income being hidden to avoid taxes.
-
Because it's an end around from paying taxes on what should be income. Those sold assets only represent, in nearly all cases, a small fraction of the income being hidden to avoid taxes.
i don't think that's accurate. the taxes are deferred, not avoided forever.
afai can tell, admittedly from just a few minutes of googling, everyone's best scheme to avoid the estate tax is just to give the money away instead of paying taxes on it. which, ok, great you didn't pay taxes, but also you're dead and your heirs hate you.
-
Because it's an end around from paying taxes on what should be income. Those sold assets only represent, in nearly all cases, a small fraction of the income being hidden to avoid taxes.
i don't think that's accurate. the taxes are deferred, not avoided forever.
afai can tell, admittedly from just a few minutes of googling, everyone's best scheme to avoid the estate tax is just to give the money away instead of paying taxes on it. which, ok, great you didn't pay taxes, but also you're dead and your heirs hate you.
The income tax they are avoiding isn't deferred. We're not talking about people sitting at home, or travelling around the world while retired. All of these guys are working real jobs, running multi-national corporations with titles, offices, and thousands of people that work for them. Our tax code allows these men, who are definitely drawing a significant salary, from actually claiming said salary. Yes, I realize that at this point most of their worth is in investments but they are working and they aren't doing it for free.
-
This guy should pay some taxes
https://twitter.com/apompliano/status/1366188811303141379?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The income tax they are avoiding isn't deferred... Our tax code allows these men, who are definitely drawing a significant salary, from actually claiming said salary.
how is this accomplished?
-
Incentive stock options? :dunno:
-
Incentive stock options? :dunno:
They are counted as income and are subject to the capital gains tax.
-
value of the option is taxable as ordinary income at exercise and any increase in value of the security as capital gains when the security is sold.
deferred, not avoided.
-
Incentive stock options? :dunno:
They are counted as income and are subject to the capital gains tax.
Why are Incentive Stock Options more favorable tax-wise?
When you exercise Incentive Stock Options, you buy the stock at a pre-established price, which could be well below actual market value. The advantage of an ISO is you do not have to report income when you receive a stock option grant or when you exercise that option.
You report the taxable income only when you sell the stock. And, depending on how long you own the stock, that income could be taxed at capital gain rates ranging from 0% to 23.8% (for sales in 2020)—typically a lot lower than your regular income tax rate.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/investments-and-taxes/incentive-stock-options/amp/L4azWgfwy
:dunno:
-
Why are Incentive Stock Options more favorable tax-wise?
When you exercise Incentive Stock Options, you buy the stock at a pre-established price, which could be well below actual market value. The advantage of an ISO is you do not have to report income when you receive a stock option grant or when you exercise that option.
You report the taxable income only when you sell the stock. And, depending on how long you own the stock, that income could be taxed at capital gain rates ranging from 0% to 23.8% (for sales in 2020)—typically a lot lower than your regular income tax rate.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/investments-and-taxes/incentive-stock-options/amp/L4azWgfwy
:dunno:
There is a catch with Incentive Stock Options, however: you do have to report that bargain element as taxable compensation for Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) purposes in the year you exercise the options (unless you sell the stock in the same year). We'll explain more about the AMT later.
thinking about it a little more, though, there is some avoidance mixed in with the deferral. i don't think it's typically a huge portion, but it's not nothing either. when a normie buys an option (let's say with after tax income to make it comparable), there is a premium in the price along with whatever difference in value between the market price and exercise price. when the option is granted, the recipient is only taxed (upon exercise) on the difference in value. the value of the premium is not taxed.
-
The income tax they are avoiding isn't deferred... Our tax code allows these men, who are definitely drawing a significant salary, from actually claiming said salary.
how is this accomplished?
dunno but I'm 100% certain it could be figured out by people who have studied tax policy.
-
Its odd to me that you can invest in a non-public company using a Roth.
-
Roth’s should probably be made illegal irl. They are a very easy way to do fun crap and never pay taxes on it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Its odd to me that you can invest in a non-public company using a Roth.
Self-directed allow you to do some wild stuff. You can buy an investment property.
-
Its odd to me that you can invest in a non-public company using a Roth.
Self-directed allow you to do some wild stuff. You can buy an investment property.
Let’s say you own a few lumberyards worth 10 million, you can “sell” it to your son for 2k in his Roth, he can sell it tax free. :eek:
-
dunno but I'm 100% certain it could be figured out by people who have studied tax policy.
hard to take very seriously the claim that this is not only possible, but common and a problem when no one can provide evidence that it exists.
-
I briefly read about self directed IRA. I decided it was not worth the effort to explore further.
-
Let’s say you own a few lumberyards worth 10 million, you can “sell” it to your son for 2k in his Roth, he can sell it tax free. :eek:
you can do this, i suppose, but it's illegal.
-
dunno but I'm 100% certain it could be figured out by people who have studied tax policy.
hard to take very seriously the claim that this is not only possible, but common and a problem when no one can provide evidence that it exists.
Did you quote the wrong post? Are you referring to the claim that rich people hide income to avoid taxes? I haven't claimed anything beyond that, and you can't possibly be saying that is a problem that we don't know of its existence. Also I never said this was common. There are 100,000,000 tax payers in America and presumably the impetus of this thread was an article about 25 of those hundred million.
-
dunno but I'm 100% certain it could be figured out by people who have studied tax policy.
hard to take very seriously the claim that this is not only possible, but common and a problem when no one can provide evidence that it exists.
Did you quote the wrong post? Are you referring to the claim that rich people hide income to avoid taxes? I haven't claimed anything beyond that, and you can't possibly be saying that is a problem that we don't know of its existence. Also I never said this was common. There are 100,000,000 tax payers in America and presumably the impetus of this thread was an article about 25 of those hundred million.
yeah, i don't think there's a secret tax code that only billionaires know how to order off of. every time i hear of one, when i look into it there's nothing there. the grand tax dodge is either giving all your money away before it's taxed or deferring your income for as long as possible or some very boring thing that everyone knows about.
maybe the secret billionaire tax code exists, but i'd like someone who believes in it to track it down and point it out to me because i've looked a little bit and i can't find it.
i mean there are very definitely things in the tax code that advantage the very rich, but it's stuff that's right out in the open like depreciating real estate when real estate actually appreciates in value, taxing dividends at half the rate of ordinary income and crap like that.
-
Yeah they get a lot of incentives that require a lot of wealth to take advantage of. I think when someone calls for closing loopholes or whatever that's what they're generally referring to
-
Yeah they get a lot of incentives that require a lot of wealth to take advantage of. I think when someone calls for closing loopholes or whatever that's what they're generally referring to
This and I thought that was obvious. No one said anything about a secret tax code, just that the more money you have the easier it is to find loopholes. TIL this wasn't rudimentary tax code knowledge.
-
No one is going to be like, "oh, I guess what I was thinking was a loophole isn't really a loophole. So, I'm reversing my prior view and now think it's great for Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary."
-
No one is going to be like, "oh, I guess what I was thinking was a loophole isn't really a loophole. So, I'm reversing my prior view and now think it's great for Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary."
i'm aware of this anecdote, but i don't know the specifics of buffett's income in that year.
regardless, the main reason buffett doesn't pay massive amounts of taxes are 1 (and about 99% of it). he doesn't realize most of his potential income in any given year, and 2 (and like 1% of it). most of his realized income is presumably capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.
so i would not characterize that difference as a loophole. the capital gains and ordinary income rates are headline items. like among the top 3 or 4 most salient features of the tax code. calling it a loophole when it's been a featured point of our tax code for as long as i can recall doesn't make much sense to me. hell, i can remember board socialist kat kid defending that feature in a previous tax discussion when i was advocating for higher rates on capital gains.
more to the point. the discussion mir and i were having was touched off by a disagreement as to whether taxes were being deferred or avoided. in the case of buffett, they are very clearly being deferred (i believe he's stated that his plan is to eventually avoid most of those deferred taxes by giving away all his money, which debate if charitable deductions makes sense as tax policy all you want, but as a super clever and nefarious scheme to not pay taxes, giving all your money away just doesn't impress me much)
-
i know we've all decided that the problem with america is the enormously rich and not the salt of the earth medium rich, but there seem to me to be a lot more mechanisms for the medium rich to pay almost no taxes than the enormously rich.
like the 11 m exemption on estate tax. doesn't much effect the tax bill buffett's heirs would pay if he doesn't disinherit them first, but plenty of berkshire hathaway shareholders will slip millions of dollars to their heirs without anyone ever paying a cent in taxes because of that exemption.
-
Personally I support generally higher taxes on the medium rich to rich, and a wealth tax on the super rich. I think it’s silly to act like the focus should be on a system that treats everyone the same (e.g., making sure we’ve closed all income tax loop holes for the super rich).
-
i know we've all decided that the problem with america is the enormously rich and not the salt of the earth medium rich, but there seem to me to be a lot more mechanisms for the medium rich to pay almost no taxes than the enormously rich.
like the 11 m exemption on estate tax. doesn't much effect the tax bill buffett's heirs would pay if he doesn't disinherit them first, but plenty of berkshire hathaway shareholders will slip millions of dollars to their heirs without anyone ever paying a cent in taxes because of that exemption.
I think it is both true that the absolute rates on middle class should be higher and that when you have billions of dollars you can be made to pay specific taxes meant to reduce your wealth.
I know you keep saying “give away” but lots and lots of rich people just use this to effectively advance their political goals, so let’s cut the bullshit.
-
No one is going to be like, "oh, I guess what I was thinking was a loophole isn't really a loophole. So, I'm reversing my prior view and now think it's great for Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary."
i'm aware of this anecdote, but i don't know the specifics of buffett's income in that year.
regardless, the main reason buffett doesn't pay massive amounts of taxes are 1 (and about 99% of it). he doesn't realize most of his potential income in any given year, and 2 (and like 1% of it). most of his realized income is presumably capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.
so i would not characterize that difference as a loophole. the capital gains and ordinary income rates are headline items. like among the top 3 or 4 most salient features of the tax code. calling it a loophole when it's been a featured point of our tax code for as long as i can recall doesn't make much sense to me. hell, i can remember board socialist kat kid defending that feature in a previous tax discussion when i was advocating for higher rates on capital gains.
more to the point. the discussion mir and i were having was touched off by a disagreement as to whether taxes were being deferred or avoided. in the case of buffett, they are very clearly being deferred (i believe he's stated that his plan is to eventually avoid most of those deferred taxes by giving away all his money, which debate if charitable deductions makes sense as tax policy all you want, but as a super clever and nefarious scheme to not pay taxes, giving all your money away just doesn't impress me much)
i know we've all decided that the problem with america is the enormously rich and not the salt of the earth medium rich, but there seem to me to be a lot more mechanisms for the medium rich to pay almost no taxes than the enormously rich.
like the 11 m exemption on estate tax. doesn't much effect the tax bill buffett's heirs would pay if he doesn't disinherit them first, but plenty of berkshire hathaway shareholders will slip millions of dollars to their heirs without anyone ever paying a cent in taxes because of that exemption.
I really think that, on a simple level, the ordinary person understands that people with higher than ordinary net worth do not pay a significantly higher than ordinary percentage of net worth in taxes. Many people think they should. That's a legit view. I think it's the sentiment Buffett captured in his example.
-
i know we've all decided that the problem with america is the enormously rich and not the salt of the earth medium rich, but there seem to me to be a lot more mechanisms for the medium rich to pay almost no taxes than the enormously rich.
like the 11 m exemption on estate tax. doesn't much effect the tax bill buffett's heirs would pay if he doesn't disinherit them first, but plenty of berkshire hathaway shareholders will slip millions of dollars to their heirs without anyone ever paying a cent in taxes because of that exemption.
Business owners have by far the most opportunities to avoid taxes. High W2 earners get shafted tax wise.
-
I know you keep saying “give away” but lots and lots of rich people just use this to effectively advance their political goals, so let’s cut the bullshit.
either way you don't have the money anymore and your kids hate you.
-
I know you keep saying “give away” but lots and lots of rich people just use this to effectively advance their political goals, so let’s cut the bullshit.
either way you don't have the money anymore and your kids hate you.
I think something like the Mercatus Center or Heritage Foundation has positive ROI
-
i know we've all decided that the problem with america is the enormously rich and not the salt of the earth medium rich, but there seem to me to be a lot more mechanisms for the medium rich to pay almost no taxes than the enormously rich.
like the 11 m exemption on estate tax. doesn't much effect the tax bill buffett's heirs would pay if he doesn't disinherit them first, but plenty of berkshire hathaway shareholders will slip millions of dollars to their heirs without anyone ever paying a cent in taxes because of that exemption.
Business owners have by far the most opportunities to avoid taxes. High W2 earners get shafted tax wise.
You're welcome, America.
-
I think something like the Mercatus Center or Heritage Foundation has positive ROI
if so, then their attempt to avoid taxes was thwarted.
-
I view them as basically tax free lobbying so no, Uncle Sam missed his cut.
-
well, he'll get to tax the returns on the investment.
-
I'd have to read up on it more but I thought there was some amount of merit towards having the capital gains be lower taxed than regular income (but maybe it's small enough that it's meh let's make them the same)
with interest rates under 2% on the ten year, i can't think of any merit. we aren't short on investment capital.
on the estate tax thing, the 400k pledge was stupid (as policy, probably good politics) and they should not let it hold them back from making needed changes that would impact like 3 people in the entire rough ridin' country.
-
Hell yes. Impeccable timing.
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1417483379235299340
-
Politicians not exempt
-
I’m fine with a wealth tax and increasing capital gains tax as long as we repeal the salt cap but that will never happen.
-
Pretty obvious where they should be focusing more of their efforts than they do currently.
https://twitter.com/JHWeissmann/status/1696968203358863415
-
These never cease to amaze me.
https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1725228522040406193
-
What’s your point Walter??
-
What’s your point Walter??
Ever read any books on wealth inequality? It'd be a good place to start.
-
Makes me wonder if the top 2.5% control 50% of household wealth, just for the sake of symmetry
-
Guess I had completely missed this thread. But I believe the way the ultra wealthy manage the whole “unrecognized gains” or whatever is that they can still count those unrecognized gains as an asset that they can borrow against and they do precisely that and the banks are happy to loan them money and even when sky high interest rates those still are nothing close to even the lowest of income tax rates.
So they can say their assets are make believe, but they can still use them as leverage to get as much cheap money as they want, whenever they want.
-
Guess I had completely missed this thread. But I believe the way the ultra wealthy manage the whole “unrecognized gains” or whatever is that they can still count those unrecognized gains as an asset that they can borrow against and they do precisely that and the banks are happy to loan them money and even when sky high interest rates those still are nothing close to even the lowest of income tax rates.
So they can say their assets are make believe, but they can still use them as leverage to get as much cheap money as they want, whenever they want.
yes, but they don't pay sky high interest rates. banks are happy to loan them money at not much more than the fed rate. obviously varies by person but if you're in position to do this to avoid the tax man you can get prime rates.
-
I'm looking forward to having very little taxable income next year and finally living as the taker ksuw always assumed I was
-
Guess I had completely missed this thread. But I believe the way the ultra wealthy manage the whole “unrecognized gains” or whatever is that they can still count those unrecognized gains as an asset that they can borrow against and they do precisely that and the banks are happy to loan them money and even when sky high interest rates those still are nothing close to even the lowest of income tax rates.
So they can say their assets are make believe, but they can still use them as leverage to get as much cheap money as they want, whenever they want.
yes, but they don't pay sky high interest rates. banks are happy to loan them money at not much more than the fed rate. obviously varies by person but if you're in position to do this to avoid the tax man you can get prime rates.
And if taxes are a bit more than you want to pay, you do a little tax harvesting. Bang. Lower tax bills. Smart.
-
I wonder if your creditor has to eat the taxes on your unrealized (now realized) gains when they execute on the collateral? I bet they just acquire it at market value. Really pound the American taxpayer again on the way out.
-
I wonder if your creditor has to eat the taxes on your unrealized (now realized) gains when they execute on the collateral? I bet they just acquire it at market value. Really pound the American taxpayer again on the way out.
the debtor would be responsible for any capital gains realized in a forced sale.
-
I wonder if your creditor has to eat the taxes on your unrealized (now realized) gains when they execute on the collateral? I bet they just acquire it at market value. Really pound the American taxpayer again on the way out.
the debtor would be responsible for any capital gains realized in a forced sale.
american taxpayer takes the pipe
-
american taxpayer takes the pipe
taxes would be collected the same as in any other sale.
-
american taxpayer takes the pipe
taxes would be collected the same as in any other sale.
Do you mean debtee? If the debtor gets transacted on they aren’t paying crap. Collect what you “can” chumps.
-
no, i mean the debtor.
-
no, i mean the debtor.
You talkin' like a UCC Art. 9 security interest? I'd never really thought about it. What happens if there's still a deficiency? Do you mean to tell me you can grab my stonks, then I have to pay taxes on the "realized" "gains," then I still owe you money?
-
no, i mean the debtor.
Yeah, I get how it “works”. And yet
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Also, steve dave looks like a fool throwing the term "debtee" out there.
-
Also, steve dave looks like a fool throwing the term "debtee" out there.
BITCH NOPE
(https://static.vecteezy.com/system/resources/previews/024/125/065/original/yellow-emoticon-3d-icon-angry-facial-expression-generative-ai-png.png)
-
I believe you're looking for the word "creditor." What is this, 18th Century England?
-
no, i mean the debtor.
You talkin' like a UCC Art. 9 security interest? I'd never really thought about it. What happens if there's still a deficiency? Do you mean to tell me you can grab my stonks, then I have to pay taxes on the "realized" "gains," then I still owe you money?
if we're still talking about loans to the uber rich guaranteed by liquid assets, i'm fairly confident that those loans are made at a small fraction of the asset value and have covenants that would force action long before those assets would be insufficient to cover both the debt and possible taxes.
if we're talking bankrupcy or something like that, i think the assets would probably have a tax lien on them prior to sale? i dunno, i'm not the lawyer here.
-
no, i mean the debtor.
You talkin' like a UCC Art. 9 security interest? I'd never really thought about it. What happens if there's still a deficiency? Do you mean to tell me you can grab my stonks, then I have to pay taxes on the "realized" "gains," then I still owe you money?
if we're still talking about loans to the uber rich guaranteed by liquid assets, i'm fairly confident that those loans are made at a small fraction of the asset value and have covenants that would force action long before those assets would be insufficient to cover both the debt and possible taxes.
if we're talking bankrupcy or something like that, i think the assets would probably have a tax lien on them prior to sale? i dunno, i'm not the lawyer here.
YOU SEEMED LIKE A LAWYER A MINITE AGO BITCH!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
you know i'm right.
-
Does Sam bank-man Fried owe taxes? Well his ass is about to be in prison living HIGH ON THE HOG ON THE BACK OF TAXPAYERS!
-
no, i mean the debtor.
You talkin' like a UCC Art. 9 security interest? I'd never really thought about it. What happens if there's still a deficiency? Do you mean to tell me you can grab my stonks, then I have to pay taxes on the "realized" "gains," then I still owe you money?
if we're still talking about loans to the uber rich guaranteed by liquid assets, i'm fairly confident that those loans are made at a small fraction of the asset value and have covenants that would force action long before those assets would be insufficient to cover both the debt and possible taxes.
if we're talking bankrupcy or something like that, i think the assets would probably have a tax lien on them prior to sale? i dunno, i'm not the lawyer here.
I’m not so sure the government can put a tax lien on something when the taxes aren’t owed yet. Isn’t that the point that started this whole thing?
-
I think Stephen David got a bit litty titty in here last night. :party:
-
This thread is taxing