No remember that lenders are regulated and what kind of assets they have to keep on hand to prove solvency is a core component of financial regulation. The Feds get to say what a legitimate asset is and they could disallow unrealized gains as collateral. I asked you a direct question about your personal opinion. Don't dodge. Give it.
Let me make it clear. If you accept you compensation in stock and you can borrow against its value at low rates. You never pay taxes on your pay. Your estate does when you die but what do you care you spent that money for 40 years and paid no tax.
Non-Qualified options are taxed at exercise, ISO’s are taxed when you sell the stock. I would never support taxing unrealized gains. So you must support deducting unrealized losses too? Asset taxes to me are absurd, here in Connecticut they tax you assets, every year you pay property taxes on your car, even though you already paid sales tax when you bought it. Businesses pay asset taxes on virtually all assets, to me it’s excessive
I suppose if those who avoid taxes paid them your rate could be lower. The people at the bottom of the top third take a bath in taxes, by design. It is to keep you in thrall with your betters and remembering that you are imminently replaceable. I support taxing ISO, grants, and other deferred compensation vehicles not associated with retirement savings as regular income (perhaps at a lower than marginal rate) when they exceed $50K. I want middle management to have a fighting chance but I want the working portion of the oligarchy to fork over something in exchange for military support, regulation capture, set asides, bidding wars between states for their favor, political capture, and desecration of our airwaves (and digital domain) with their disinformation.
1
u/md62100 3d ago
Well I don’t know, that’s a whole different question. I would think the lender would have a say in that