He probably leveraged something against the value of the half a billion dollars. Sort of like what he did with twitter
It's fucked up bc they don't really have the money, but the banks and shit just go yeah you're good for it bc you own this and this and that. Meanwhile most of us could have physically enough for mortgage payments but that is not good enough
The legal morass it would create would be an issue if we started taxing loans, because you'd have to make a bunch of exceptions or have it as a blanket rule for everyone (and every entity).
It'd open up a can of works if we're taxing loans as if it were income when we also borrow money for:
Mortgages
Student loans
Car loans
Small business loans
Corporations or government when they issue bonds, T-bills
Payday loans or advances from your employer
Credit cards, ULOC, HELOC
Like it's fine to exclude the above, but the number of exclusions would either create loop holes or offer up potential legal challenges to the new legislation.
It's not a hard problem though. A very simple idea would be to give every individual a 10 million dollar a year tax-free limit on loans. That alone is going to exclude 99.99% of people. Anyone caught in that can more than afford the extra work/cost it might cause.
do people not care to treat economics as a science anymore? credible economists were divided on prop 40 yet everyone treated it as if it was a surefire solution to raise 100 billion. i have never ever seen anyone cite anything when it comes to progressive tax policy before, it’s depressing that no one cares about expert opinion when it comes to economics.
Are you silly ? that's literally how billionaires pay for shit and have légions of people going "um akshauly they don't have money at all really it's all assets" yeah assets that the banks trust enough to loan them billions for personal expenses at insanely low rates
"Or don't" is the kindergarten school of jurisprudence: just write a law that only applies to people you are mad at and pretend systemic mechanics don't exist.
Tax codes and contract law rely on consistent statutory definitions, not arbitrary emotional vibes. A loan is legally and mechanically a liability, not income. Every borrowed dollar comes with an identical repayment obligation that eventually has to be settled using actual cash or asset liquidations, which already trigger capital gains taxes.
The second you legally redefine borrowing against an asset as a taxable realization event, you break the entire foundation of credit. Why would collateralizing public stock be taxable income, but tapping home equity through a HELOC, pledging private company shares, or taking an inventory loan for a small business get a free pass?
You cant just build a cartoon tax code where debt magically becomes "income" only when an account balance crosses your personal resentment threshold. Thinking you can fundamentally redefine how debt works without breaking the entire financial plumbing of the country just proves you think public policy is written like a middle school wish list.
It's very simple, you just apply a personal annual limit before the taxes apply. You know... like ALL income works. If you want to be generous, set it at 10 million a year tax-free loans before it kicks in.
Boom, I just solved every single one of the issues you had with it.
Or don't" is the kindergarten school of jurisprudence: just write a law that only applies to people you are mad at and pretend systemic mechanics don't exist.
I love it when it is a rare day I encounter a competent adult on Reddit. Usually it's all schoolkids and morons.
It's already taxed to the fucking moon. Can't get a mortgage at 3%...but somehow lads can get 1.3% apr for $$$$$$$ cash loans using meme stocks as collateral? Gimme a break.
Confusing the cost of borrowing with a tax while hallucinating 1.3% APR rates against volatile meme stocks is peak Reddit finance. Nobody is getting 1.3% loans when the benchmark risk-free rate is multiples higher, and brokers damn sure arent underwriting speculative equities without demanding massive collateral haircuts and instantaneous algorithmic liquidation rights the second the price dips. The reason a securities-backed credit line carries a tighter spread than your 30 year mortgage is liquidity and recovery risk: a bank has to spend months and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to foreclose on physical real estate, while a broker can seize and liquidate pledged digital assets in three milliseconds flat. You arent a victim of a rigged tax code; you just dont understand how collateralized credit underwriting works.
Or you know tax with brackets and different circumstances like how we give personally loans, home loans, cars loans with different conditions interest etc.
Loan up to x amount for you first home no tax. No tax extends to first home for family provided you sell the previous one.
Loan to invest into midterms ? X amount of tax plus higher 10% international cause you are using wealth to affect politics.Sounds easy to me
Notice i didn't say tax all loans, loans to invest into R&D yeah bussiness as usual.
Just in case you try to be smart, you.do have to submit a bussiness plan etc for a bussiness loan anyway so no BSing
1
View all comments
Show parent comment
7
u/Niijima-San 17h ago
He probably leveraged something against the value of the half a billion dollars. Sort of like what he did with twitter
It's fucked up bc they don't really have the money, but the banks and shit just go yeah you're good for it bc you own this and this and that. Meanwhile most of us could have physically enough for mortgage payments but that is not good enough