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.

What are you defining as "losses"?

---

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

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

What are you defining as "losses"?

There in lies the rub.  Currently the value of an asset is what someone will pay for it. Under this system it is a "market value" defined by what someone believes it is worth. A very bias way to do things. I like you so your stuff is worth x, I do not like you so yours is worth 2X. Why don't we make this as complicated as possible?

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

What are you defining as "losses"?

There in lies the rub.  Currently the value of an asset is what someone will pay for it. Under this system it is a "market value" defined by what someone believes it is worth. A very bias way to do things. I like you so your stuff is worth x, I do not like you so yours is worth 2X. Why don't we make this as complicated as possible?

It's more than just a belief. It's a belief that a bank originates a loan based on.
Besides, most of the assets we are talking about are things like stocks and real estate.
There are also assets that are harder to evaluate like artwork, and I suppose an owner may be motivated to go to a bank and ask them to lowball the value so that they can get a tax break. But over time that would be reducing their ability to use loans to create income based on that asset, and would also make the bank liable for some fraud investigations. Most people would play it straight. Every tax system can be gamed, but some can be gamed more than others.

---

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

There in lies the rub.  Currently the value of an asset is what someone will pay for it. Under this system it is a "market value" defined by what someone believes it is worth. A very bias way to do things. I like you so your stuff is worth x, I do not like you so yours is worth 2X. Why don't we make this as complicated as possible?

It's more than just a belief. It's a belief that a bank to originates a loan on.
Besides, most of the assets we are talking about are things like stocks and real estate.
There are also assets that are harder to evaluate like artwork, and I suppose an owner may be motivated to go to a bank and ask them to lowball the value so that they can get a tax break. But over time that would be reducing their ability to use loans to create income based on that asset, and would also make the bank liable for some fraud investigations. Most people would play it straight. Every tax system can be gamed, but some can be gamed more than others.

Still waiting on your definition of "loss" and what assets would be subject to the plan.

You're talking about felony offenses.  Let's stick to realistic, common business type scenarios.

---

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

That system is no more equitable than what is in place. It just allows the charging of taxes based on what some bureaucrat believes the value is in advance. Hard pass. Doge is uncovering what those guys have been up to and it is not pretty. So your a tax and spend guy? Want to kick all the old people out of their homes? How nice of you.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

It's more than just a belief. It's a belief that a bank to originates a loan on.
Besides, most of the assets we are talking about are things like stocks and real estate.
There are also assets that are harder to evaluate like artwork, and I suppose an owner may be motivated to go to a bank and ask them to lowball the value so that they can get a tax break. But over time that would be reducing their ability to use loans to create income based on that asset, and would also make the bank liable for some fraud investigations. Most people would play it straight. Every tax system can be gamed, but some can be gamed more than others.

Still waiting on your definition of "loss" and what assets would be subject to the plan.

You're talking about felony offenses.  Let's stick to realistic, common business type scenarios.

Assets that are subject to capital gains tax today would be subject to this. Assets that are not, would not. 
Any reduction in value between the time that an asset was purchased and the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a loss. 
Any increase in value between the time that an asset was purchased in the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a gain.
It's only complicated if you want it to be complicated. What is the problem?

---

That system is no more equitable than what is in place. It just allows the charging of taxes based on what some bureaucrat believes the value is in advance. Hard pass. Doge is uncovering what those guys have been up to and it is not pretty.  So your a tax and spend guy?  Want to kick all the old people out of their homes? How nice of you.

The value of the asset is established by agreement between the person who owns the asset and the bank that is loaning them money using the asset as collateral. No IRS bureaucrat is involved with determining the value of the assets.

Who said anything about kicking old people out of their homes? That's a question of state law, not federal tax policy. Our state has a homestead exemption, which prevents most old people from being kicked out of most of the homes they own. Some states don't have this, but that's not a federal issue.

---

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

Still waiting on your definition of "loss" and what assets would be subject to the plan.

You're talking about felony offenses.  Let's stick to realistic, common business type scenarios.

Assets that are subject to capital gains tax today would be subject to this. Assets that are not, would not. 
Any reduction in value between the time that an asset was purchased and the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a loss. 
Any increase in value between the time that an asset was purchased in the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a gain.
It's only complicated if you want it to be complicated. What is the problem?

---

That system is no more equitable than what is in place. It just allows the charging of taxes based on what some bureaucrat believes the value is in advance. Hard pass. Doge is uncovering what those guys have been up to and it is not pretty.  So your a tax and spend guy?  Want to kick all the old people out of their homes? How nice of you.

The value of the asset is established by agreement between the person who owns the asset and the bank that is loaning them money using the asset as collateral. No IRS bureaucrat is involved with determining the value of the assets.

Who said anything about kicking old people out of their homes? That's a question of state law, not federal tax policy. Our state has a homestead exemption, which prevents most old people from being kicked out of most of the homes they own. Some states don't have this, but that's not a federal issue.

Go sell it elsewhere. I for one am not guying what you are selling. Others on here may, but that is their prerogative. Pigeon

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Assets that are subject to capital gains tax today would be subject to this. Assets that are not, would not. 
Any reduction in value between the time that an asset was purchased and the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a loss. 
Any increase in value between the time that an asset was purchased in the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a gain.
It's only complicated if you want it to be complicated. What is the problem?

---

The value of the asset is established by agreement between the person who owns the asset and the bank that is loaning them money using the asset as collateral. No IRS bureaucrat is involved with determining the value of the assets.

Who said anything about kicking old people out of their homes? That's a question of state law, not federal tax policy. Our state has a homestead exemption, which prevents most old people from being kicked out of most of the homes they own. Some states don't have this, but that's not a federal issue.

Go sell it elsewhere. I for one am not guying what you are selling. Others on here may, but that is their prerogative. Pigeon

I understand 100%.  Rational thoughts were leading you to conclude that I had a point, so you shut them down and reverted to name calling because that feels better for you.

---

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

Still waiting on your definition of "loss" and what assets would be subject to the plan.

You're talking about felony offenses.  Let's stick to realistic, common business type scenarios.

Assets that are subject to capital gains tax today would be subject to this. Assets that are not, would not. 
Any reduction in value between the time that an asset was purchased and the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a loss. 
Any increase in value between the time that an asset was purchased in the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a gain.
It's only complicated if you want it to be complicated. What is the problem?

---

That system is no more equitable than what is in place. It just allows the charging of taxes based on what some bureaucrat believes the value is in advance. Hard pass. Doge is uncovering what those guys have been up to and it is not pretty.  So your a tax and spend guy?  Want to kick all the old people out of their homes? How nice of you.

The value of the asset is established by agreement between the person who owns the asset and the bank that is loaning them money using the asset as collateral. No IRS bureaucrat is involved with determining the value of the assets.

Who said anything about kicking old people out of their homes? That's a question of state law, not federal tax policy. Our state has a homestead exemption, which prevents most old people from being kicked out of most of the homes they own. Some states don't have this, but that's not a federal issue.

The problem is that you're tossing around the "subject to capital gains tax" phrase, while having no understanding of what is considered a capital asset for tax purposes.  Almost everything you own is subject to tax if you sell it for a gain.  Also, drop the "today" reference and refer to transaction date.


LOL.  Big violation of banking law there.  For the nth time, do a little research first if you don't want to sound completely clueless.

---

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

Assets that are subject to capital gains tax today would be subject to this. Assets that are not, would not. 
Any reduction in value between the time that an asset was purchased and the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a loss. 
Any increase in value between the time that an asset was purchased in the time that it was used as collateral on a new loan would be considered a gain.
It's only complicated if you want it to be complicated. What is the problem?

---

The value of the asset is established by agreement between the person who owns the asset and the bank that is loaning them money using the asset as collateral. No IRS bureaucrat is involved with determining the value of the assets.

Who said anything about kicking old people out of their homes? That's a question of state law, not federal tax policy. Our state has a homestead exemption, which prevents most old people from being kicked out of most of the homes they own. Some states don't have this, but that's not a federal issue.

The problem is that you're tossing around the "subject to capital gains tax" phrase, while having no understanding of what is considered a capital asset for tax purposes.  Almost everything you own is subject to tax if you sell it for a gain.  Also, drop the "today" reference and refer to transaction date.


LOL.  Big violation of banking law there.  For the nth time, do a little research first if you don't want to sound completely clueless.

Those are all red herrings, you are reading my stuff and looking for excuses to decide that I am ignorant so that you can disregard me.

I have paid capital gains tax every year of my adult life. For most of those years I did my own taxes and my wife's taxes.

The reason I'm not including the details you mentioned is because the proposal is really really simple.  All I'm saying is that the event of originating a loan should be treated as a realization of gain (or loss) for tax purposes for any asset used as collateral. If the transaction date occurred a year or less from the original purchase date, then it would be subject to the short-term rate. If the transaction date was more than a year after the original purchase, it would be subject to the long-term rate.

---

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

The problem is that you're tossing around the "subject to capital gains tax" phrase, while having no understanding of what is considered a capital asset for tax purposes.  Almost everything you own is subject to tax if you sell it for a gain.  Also, drop the "today" reference and refer to transaction date.


LOL.  Big violation of banking law there.  For the nth time, do a little research first if you don't want to sound completely clueless.

Those are all red herrings, you are reading my stuff and looking for excuses to decide that I am ignorant so that you can disregard me.

I have paid capital gains tax every year of my adult life. For most of those years I did my own taxes and my wife's taxes.

The reason I'm not including the details you mentioned is because the proposal is really really simple.  All I'm saying is that the event of originating a loan should be treated as a realization of gain (or loss) for tax purposes for any asset used as collateral. If the transaction date occurred a year or less from the original purchase date, then it would be subject to the short-term rate. If the transaction date was more than a year after the original purchase, it would be subject to the long-term rate.

Not attacking you, just this half-baked process of taxation you are proposing. If you consider that an attack on you so be it. That is your issue.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Those are all red herrings, you are reading my stuff and looking for excuses to decide that I am ignorant so that you can disregard me.

I have paid capital gains tax every year of my adult life. For most of those years I did my own taxes and my wife's taxes.

The reason I'm not including the details you mentioned is because the proposal is really really simple.  All I'm saying is that the event of originating a loan should be treated as a realization of gain (or loss) for tax purposes for any asset used as collateral. If the transaction date occurred a year or less from the original purchase date, then it would be subject to the short-term rate. If the transaction date was more than a year after the original purchase, it would be subject to the long-term rate.

Not attacking you, just this half-baked process of taxation you are proposing. If you consider that an attack on you so be it. That is your issue.

They are red herrings and I explained why I think they're red herrings. 

Meanwhile I think you just exposed your alt. I had been suspecting this for a while.

---

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

Not attacking you, just this half-baked process of taxation you are proposing. If you consider that an attack on you so be it. That is your issue.

They are red herrings and I explained why I think they're red herrings. 

Meanwhile I think you just exposed your alt. I had been suspecting this for a while.

lol, I see ,,, if someone just doesn't agree with your idea they are bad. Now that is not a position I hold, but it is your right to have that opinion.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

The problem is that you're tossing around the "subject to capital gains tax" phrase, while having no understanding of what is considered a capital asset for tax purposes.  Almost everything you own is subject to tax if you sell it for a gain.  Also, drop the "today" reference and refer to transaction date.


LOL.  Big violation of banking law there.  For the nth time, do a little research first if you don't want to sound completely clueless.

Those are all red herrings, you are reading my stuff and looking for excuses to decide that I am ignorant so that you can disregard me.

I have paid capital gains tax every year of my adult life. For most of those years I did my own taxes and my wife's taxes.

The reason I'm not including the details you mentioned is because the proposal is really really simple.  All I'm saying is that the event of originating a loan should be treated as a realization of gain (or loss) for tax purposes for any asset used as collateral. If the transaction date occurred a year or less from the original purchase date, then it would be subject to the short-term rate. If the transaction date was more than a year after the original purchase, it would be subject to the long-term rate.

Hey, you're the one providing the raw material.

This is what you said in the beginning, then you modified the definition.  Are you back to any asset now?

Here's a scenario for you.  I buy car for 100k and a few years later, it appraises for 50k.  I take out a loan for 40k, using the car as collateral.  What is the refund on my loss?

---

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

Those are all red herrings, you are reading my stuff and looking for excuses to decide that I am ignorant so that you can disregard me.

I have paid capital gains tax every year of my adult life. For most of those years I did my own taxes and my wife's taxes.

The reason I'm not including the details you mentioned is because the proposal is really really simple.  All I'm saying is that the event of originating a loan should be treated as a realization of gain (or loss) for tax purposes for any asset used as collateral. If the transaction date occurred a year or less from the original purchase date, then it would be subject to the short-term rate. If the transaction date was more than a year after the original purchase, it would be subject to the long-term rate.

Hey, you're the one providing the raw material.

This is what you said in the beginning, then you modified the definition.  Are you back to any asset now?

Here's a scenario for you.  I buy car for 100k and a few years later, it appraises for 50k.  I take out a loan for 40k, using the car as collateral.  What is the refund on my loss?

We already covered this.  Is the vehicle a business vehicle as defined in current law?

---

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

---

Busted? is this true?

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Those are all red herrings, you are reading my stuff and looking for excuses to decide that I am ignorant so that you can disregard me.

I have paid capital gains tax every year of my adult life. For most of those years I did my own taxes and my wife's taxes.

The reason I'm not including the details you mentioned is because the proposal is really really simple.  All I'm saying is that the event of originating a loan should be treated as a realization of gain (or loss) for tax purposes for any asset used as collateral. If the transaction date occurred a year or less from the original purchase date, then it would be subject to the short-term rate. If the transaction date was more than a year after the original purchase, it would be subject to the long-term rate.

Hey, you're the one providing the raw material.

This is what you said in the beginning, then you modified the definition.  Are you back to any asset now?

Here's a scenario for you.  I buy car for 100k and a few years later, it appraises for 50k.  I take out a loan for 40k, using the car as collateral.  What is the refund on my loss?

We already covered this.  Is the vehicle a business vehicle as defined in current law?

Why don't you tell me what "any" means in the mikesez dictionary, then I'll tell you what it means to everyone else on the planet.

Under your proposal, the use of the asset is irrelevant.

---

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

Busted? is this true?

AOC didn't collect dead grandmother's Social Security checks
The rumor about the New York congresswoman originated from a network of Facebook pages and websites describing its output as satirical in nature.

A rumor that U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., cashed her dead grandmother's Social Security checks for more than 14 years circulated online in March and April 2025.

For example, on April 1, the Facebook page Reagan Was Right posted (archived) a photo of Ocasio-Cortez with the caption, "AOC has no excuse for why her family has been cashing her dead Grandmother's Social Security checks for a decade and a half: 'We must have just overlooked it.' They overlooked a $3,400 deposit from the SSA every month for 14 and a half years? Sounds likely."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-gr...-security/


How trust worthy is Snoops???? They've been wrong before (covering for Jackasses)

---

Busted? is this true?

AOC didn't collect dead grandmother's Social Security checks
The rumor about the New York congresswoman originated from a network of Facebook pages and websites describing its output as satirical in nature.

A rumor that U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., cashed her dead grandmother's Social Security checks for more than 14 years circulated online in March and April 2025.

For example, on April 1, the Facebook page Reagan Was Right posted (archived) a photo of Ocasio-Cortez with the caption, "AOC has no excuse for why her family has been cashing her dead Grandmother's Social Security checks for a decade and a half: 'We must have just overlooked it.' They overlooked a $3,400 deposit from the SSA every month for 14 and a half years? Sounds likely."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-gr...-security/


How trust worthy is Snoops???? They've been wrong before (covering for Jackasses)

Well like everything else it will come out in the wash. I am just trying to not jump on a flashy headline until all the
precincts report.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.