The people writing the law would be free to use either the loan amount or the bank-demanded multiple of the loan amount in their tax calculation. I suggest the loan amount, which results in a lower tax. 

As far as HELOCs, if it's a primary residence, its gains already aren't taxable, regardless of if the gains were realized as a sale or as a loan.

If it was a business vehicle, you could already claim its depreciation as a loss.  For a personal vehicle you can not.

Got any more misinformation?

Your providing quite enough...

For instance?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

First of all, to get a loan using stock as collateral, a bank will typically want double the loan amount at the current trading price.  For a 200k loan, that means 400k stock for security, so your tax calculation is wrong. 

Second, borrowed money is NOT income.  Income you can keep, borrowed funds have to be paid back.  It only becomes taxable income if the debt is forgiven by the lender, in which case you should receive a 1099-C.

Third, you just killed the home-equity loan business.  

Now let's talk about losses.  Under your plan, if I paid 50k for a new car (or boat, tractor, RV, etc.) a few years ago, and now it's worth 20k, I could take out a loan against it and the IRS would send me a refund for my "loss"?  SWEET!

The people writing the law would be free to use either the loan amount or the bank-demanded multiple of the loan amount in their tax calculation. I suggest the loan amount, which results in a lower tax. 

As far as HELOCs, if it's a primary residence, its gains already aren't taxable, regardless of if the gains were realized as a sale or as a loan.

If it was a business vehicle, you could already claim its depreciation as a loss.  For a personal vehicle you can not.

Got any more misinformation?

Your providing quite enough...

For instance?

Your "information" misses a few key points.   Gains on a primary residence are not automatically tax free.  You must have lived in the house as your primary residence for two of the last five years and the exemption is limited to 250k for individuals and 500k for married couples.
You also haven't explained your plan.  Are you suggesting eliminating the gains exemption on primary residences?

Thanks, I'm familiar with depreciation on business-owned assets.  You said, "start collecting capital gains on any asset used as collateral on a loan" and a personal car or boat can meet that definition.  Are you backpedaling already?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

The people writing the law would be free to use either the loan amount or the bank-demanded multiple of the loan amount in their tax calculation. I suggest the loan amount, which results in a lower tax. 

As far as HELOCs, if it's a primary residence, its gains already aren't taxable, regardless of if the gains were realized as a sale or as a loan.

If it was a business vehicle, you could already claim its depreciation as a loss.  For a personal vehicle you can not.

Got any more misinformation?

For instance?

Your "information" misses a few key points.   Gains on a primary residence are not automatically tax free.  You must have lived in the house as your primary residence for two of the last five years and the exemption is limited to 250k for individuals and 500k for married couples.
You also haven't explained your plan.  Are you suggesting eliminating the gains exemption on primary residences?

Thanks, I'm familiar with depreciation on business-owned assets.  You said, "start collecting capital gains on any asset used as collateral on a loan" and a personal car or boat can meet that definition.  Are you backpedaling already?

You're the one who keeps bringing up finer points.
All I said was, if an asset is used as collateral on a loan, treat the origination of the loan as a realization of the capital gain.  If the asset was not subject to capital gains tax before, for some other reason, it still would not be subject to capital gains tax.  Once the asset's gains are taxed this way, its cost basis would go up to today's value, so you don't get taxed on the same gain twice when you actually sell the asset, if you ever do sell it before you die.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The people writing the law would be free to use either the loan amount or the bank-demanded multiple of the loan amount in their tax calculation. I suggest the loan amount, which results in a lower tax. 

As far as HELOCs, if it's a primary residence, its gains already aren't taxable, regardless of if the gains were realized as a sale or as a loan.

If it was a business vehicle, you could already claim its depreciation as a loss.  For a personal vehicle you can not.

Got any more misinformation?

For instance?

Your "information" misses a few key points.   Gains on a primary residence are not automatically tax free.  You must have lived in the house as your primary residence for two of the last five years and the exemption is limited to 250k for individuals and 500k for married couples.
You also haven't explained your plan.  Are you suggesting eliminating the gains exemption on primary residences?

Thanks, I'm familiar with depreciation on business-owned assets.  You said, "start collecting capital gains on any asset used as collateral on a loan" and a personal car or boat can meet that definition.  Are you backpedaling already?

I suppose I could treat you the way you treat me. If you already knew that most of the value of most homes is not subject to capital gains tax, why did you say my idea would "kill the home equity loan business"?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Your "information" misses a few key points.   Gains on a primary residence are not automatically tax free.  You must have lived in the house as your primary residence for two of the last five years and the exemption is limited to 250k for individuals and 500k for married couples.
You also haven't explained your plan.  Are you suggesting eliminating the gains exemption on primary residences?

Thanks, I'm familiar with depreciation on business-owned assets.  You said, "start collecting capital gains on any asset used as collateral on a loan" and a personal car or boat can meet that definition.  Are you backpedaling already?

I suppose I could treat you the way you treat me.  If you already knew that most of the value of most homes is not subject to capital gains tax, why did you say my idea would "kill the home equity loan business"?

Because your proposal doesn't allow a primary residence exemption.  Again, you said "start collecting capital gains tax on any asset used as collateral on a loan".  What part of your own plan do you not understand?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I suppose I could treat you the way you treat me.  If you already knew that most of the value of most homes is not subject to capital gains tax, why did you say my idea would "kill the home equity loan business"?

Because your proposal doesn't allow a primary residence exemption.  Again, you said "start collecting capital gains tax on any asset used as collateral on a loan".  What part of your own plan do you not understand?

See post 323.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Debating Mikesez is like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Debating Mikesez is like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.

I try to make my posts clear.  You guys interpret them in ways that don't make sense, and then blame me for your misunderstanding. 
It reminds me of one of the stereotypical complaints in a new romantic relationship.  "If there are two ways to interpret what I say, and one of them makes you mad, I meant the other one."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Debating Mikesez is like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.

It is admittedly a tedious chore, especially when he pulls out the mikesez dictionary to "explain" his earlier inaccuracies. And I do enjoy a good battle of wits, but it's really not very sporting to pummel an unarmed opponent.  

But I, like yourself, am compelled to expose false and misleading information.  It's a daunting challenge to be sure, given his output, but hey, an oath is an oath.  As Guardians of the Truth, it is our sworn duty to defend the integrity of the message board to the best of our ability, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Let's get back on topic.
This is the proposal:

if an asset is used as collateral on a loan, we should treat the origination of the loan as a realization of the capital gain. If the asset was not subject to capital gains tax before, for some other reason, it still would not be subject to capital gains tax. Once the asset's gains are taxed this way, its cost basis would go up to today's value, so you don't get taxed on the same gain twice when you actually sell the asset, if you ever do sell it before you die.

Debate that. Not me.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Debating Mikesez is like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.

I try to make my posts clear.  You guys interpret them in ways that don't make sense, and then blame me for your misunderstanding. 
It reminds me of one of the stereotypical complaints in a new romantic relationship.  "If there are two ways to interpret what I say, and one of them makes you mad, I meant the other that one."

More accurate description of you.

---

Debating Mikesez is like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall.

It is admittedly a tedious chore, especially when he pulls out the mikesez dictionary to "explain" his earlier inaccuracies. And I do enjoy a good battle of wits, but it's really not very sporting to pummel an unarmed opponent.  

But I, like yourself, am compelled to expose false and misleading information.  It's a daunting challenge to be sure, given his output, but hey, an oath is an oath.  As Guardians of the Truth, it is our sworn duty to defend the integrity of the message board to the best of our ability, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

SO SAY WE ALL!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

DOGE's Next Target: 'Strangely Wealthy' Congresspeople

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, wants to know how lawmakers on Capitol Hill got “strangely wealthy” while earning modest public salaries, the New York Post reports.

Musk said one of the next priorities for his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will be to find out exactly how certain Congressmen and women achieved generational wealth, he told a town hall in Wisconsin Sunday night.

Asked if DOGE had found improper use of funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, Musk said funds could be sent via a purposely complicated route.

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streetta...id/1205045

---

DOGE's Next Target: 'Strangely Wealthy' Congresspeople

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, wants to know how lawmakers on Capitol Hill got “strangely wealthy” while earning modest public salaries, the New York Post reports.

Musk said one of the next priorities for his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will be to find out exactly how certain Congressmen and women achieved generational wealth, he told a town hall in Wisconsin Sunday night.

Asked if DOGE had found improper use of funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, Musk said funds could be sent via a purposely complicated route.

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streetta...id/1205045

I'm all for investigating.
I would bet that most of the money was given as advances, consulting fees, speaking fees, etc., basically a bunch of no show jobs.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Department of Government Efficiency
@DOGE
·
2h
Each year, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) receives $55M in congressional (taxpayer) funds.

- Prior management would sweep excess funds into its private Endowment (zero congressional oversight).
-In the past 10 years, USIP has transferred ~$13M to its private Endowment, mainly used for private events and travel.

USIP contracts (now cancelled) include:
- $132,000 to Mohammad Qasem Halimi, an ex-Taliban member who was Afghanistan's former Chief of Protocol.
- $2,232,500 to its outside Accountant, who attempted to delete over 1 terabyte of accounting data (now recovered) after new leadership entered the building
- $1,307,061 to the Al Tadhamun Iraqi League for Youth
- $675,000 for private aviation services
===========================================
Square profile picture
Department of Government Efficiency
@DOGE
·
5h
As of Friday, $4.3B of COVID era funds remained unused and mostly dormant. Thanks to the work of @SecretaryLCD
and @Sonderling47
@USDOL
, $1.4B was recovered and returned directly to the Treasury general account, and team is moving urgently to return the remaining $2.9B.

This had been pointed out in a 2023 IG report, and action is now being taken.
=================================================================
Lee Zeldin
@epaleezeldin
·
7h
The Biden Admin spent $4M in tax dollars on a museum to tell a selective story of @EPA
history. It costs $600K per year to operate even though only 1,909 external visitors came through in the last 9 months. Today we are closing it.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

What they found should really PISS OFF Every American taxpayer.........

Democrats in panic mode as Elon Musk and DOGE go public
It is not surprising that Democrats and their media allies have been lying to the public about DOGE

Democrats are facing their worst nightmare: Elon Musk, one of the smartest people on the planet, is revealing their dirty tricks. No wonder they are out to destroy him and his companies.

Musk spoke recently at a town hall in Wisconsin, supporting a Republican candidate for that state’s Supreme Court who could be critical in determining whether the GOP continues to narrowly control the House of Representatives. The currently liberal court is likely to redraw the swing state’s districts to favor Democrats, costing GOP seats.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrat...-go-public

---

The U.S. Department of Labor is returning $1.4 billion in unused COVID-era funding to taxpayers, with actions underway to recover the remaining $2.9 billion, totaling $4.3 billion intended for states for temporary unemployment insurance during the pandemic.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Let's get back on topic. 
This is the proposal:

if an asset is used as collateral on a loan, we should treat the origination of the loan as a realization of the capital gain.  If the asset was not subject to capital gains tax before, for some other reason, it still would not be subject to capital gains tax.  Once the asset's gains are taxed this way, its cost basis would go up to today's value, so you don't get taxed on the same gain twice when you actually sell the asset, if you ever do sell it before you die.

Debate that.  Not me.

It's poorly conceived and apparently drafted by someone with little tax knowledge and even less business sense.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Let's get back on topic. 
This is the proposal:

Debate that.  Not me.

It's poorly conceived and apparently drafted by someone with little tax knowledge and even less business sense.

Explain. Why is this worse than the capital gains tax we already have?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's poorly conceived and apparently drafted by someone with little tax knowledge and even less business sense.

Explain. Why is this worse than the capital gains tax we already have?

Our current system is based on actual gain, which only occurs with a sale.  Until that point, the "gain" is just theoretical.  As before, what's the provision for assets that have negative growth?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Explain. Why is this worse than the capital gains tax we already have?

Our current system is based on actual gain, which only occurs with a sale.  Until that point, the "gain" is just theoretical.  As before, what's the provision for assets that have negative growth?

The losses can be written off and reduce your tax burden.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.