That is result of some really insane laws that has been written about a million times. They have known that zillionaires are using it to avoid paying taxes altogether, even after death.
While I agree, there's something that feels unfair about double taxation.
Here's an idea:
- Capital gains become taxable when you borrow against an asset, proportionate to the amount borrowed.
- The gains which have already been taxed are added to the asset's cost basis, so they're not taxed again on sale (basically same as sell and rebuy).
If the shares subsequently tank, you can carry forward the loss against future gains on the same asset, but can't claim a refund or offset unrelated gains (to avoid incentives to transfer value to a different company and dodge liability, etc.)
For example:
2000: I buy $1M of S&P 500 ETFs.
2026: They're worth $8.5M ($7.5M gain). I borrow $2M against them, effectively realising ~24% of the gains (~$1.75M), and pay CGT on that amount. My cost basis increases to $2.75M.
2030: I sell up for $10M. Instead of paying CGT on $9M of gains, I pay it on ~$7.25M, since the rest was already taxed.
If they forced sell any stock that is has been held for more than a year on random dates and bought them back automatically, the whole scheme will be done for.
If you are borrowing against unrealized appreciation of more than the $250k that is exempt for a primary residence, you should be.
If you are borrowing to buy the house in the first place, then all of the capital gains have already been taxed, so it's not analogous to this scenario.
The headline is editorialized way beyond what the article is about:
> A new survey of 57 of the world’s biggest private banks and other lenders, conducted by Deloitte and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, offers the fullest picture yet of this opaque corner of finance. Banks don’t always break out such lending on their balance sheets, and there is no central tally of how much is outstanding. The report finds that stock-based lending, better known as Lombard loans to borrowers in Europe and Asia, is increasingly available to those lower down the wealth scale.
> ...
> In mid-October, Charles Schwab said its pledged asset line product available to people with at least $100,000 in nonretirement assets drove a 35% surge in bank-loan balances, to $72.3 billion in the third quarter. A spokeswoman said usage grew after Schwab launched a fully digital process three years ago that can get the loans approved within minutes.
Mixing "buy, borrow and die" up with a pledged asset line is ridiculous and clickbait to the point of disrespect for the reader's intelligence. The former is a boutique product used by the uber-rich (net worth in 9 figures minimum) to get around estate tax. They're certainly not using a pledged asset line, which is available to you and me but doesn't do anything for estate taxes.
The cynical read into this is WSJ is trying to whitewash the "buy, borrow and die" strategy using "hey, if the same strategy available to the plebs, then it must be morally justified, right?"
the financial sector is an ongoing construction project, going the direction of all items having an easy way to be valued to the minute, with the merchant and reseller having the same price instead of a wildly different one, all items then being able to be used as collateral instantly, fractionally sold as shares, and with a derivatives market on top
this project is not done, it’s not close to done, but improvements in this space have led to more people being able to access this lending market
I see that improving beyond publicly traded equity and real estate
That's technically cool; many nerds don't appreciate the wizardry that exists in finance. But this is really an ethical discussion. The "more people" are still the richest members of society, and society is far from fully meritocratic. Should we allow inequality to increase unchecked?
I can see arguments that the Walton family deserves to be ludicrously rich. I don't see why they should have access to tax avoidance strategies unavailable to Bertie the Janitor. I also don't see why someone merely Porsche-rich should have access to those, either.
I can see how this competes with a tax fairness idea
I think you would appreciate how this contributes to it, Bertie the Janitor should be able to use their kitchen table, furniture and objects around them as collateral too. This is the direction it’s all going as all the frictions to trade, liquidity and price discovery go away.
Regarding tax, the state is not a responsible spender with a balanced budget, its services are paid for by its bonds and the tax is one of many revenue sources to pay the interest the state owes. I’m writing that to point out that the ire is put towards the wrong participants. It doesn’t make sense to ask why we aren’t getting taken from equally, when why are we being taken from at all is also valid.
Driving one town over to pay a lower gas or sales tax is equally weighted as all other tax avoidance
Regarding the payments themselves, this strategy does involve paying the banks interest. As far as convenience goes in this article’s behavior, you’re either paying the government or you’re paying the bank. This is normal enough for me not to really have I guess the vitriol about it.
I see the different ways that people think about it, but it hasnt solved the state’s own borrowing and spending problem, and usually doesnt address that at all. They just want others to feel the same pain they feel, which doesnt make sense to me. I would be more aligned with proposals to address the state’s spending.
It is interesting, but also seems needlessly complex and of limited benefit to anyone not already at the top, and thus prone to cumulative errors and delusion which make the entire system brittle. So as someone not at the top, why should I do anything but oppose these "improvements"? I don't have ambitions of being a billionaire or weilding the power of nations, so how is this not a pure detriment to me?
> needlessly complex and of limited benefit to anyone not already at the top
you have things of value all around you, captured value that you cannot turn into cash because of its poor liquidity and poor institutions for that asset class, you don't need to be at the top. there is a collector of old concert tickets, a collector of your digital footprint, a collector of your furniture, a collector of the junk you've been hoarding. you just can't find those people, get a fair price, avoid getting scammed, or have any remedies if you did get scammed, compared to assets that institutional banks service. And because you can't, the banks can't either and have the same issues, hence why there is no lending market or way to mitigate risk.
I didn't write in this thread to have a contrarian view, it's a system I'm aware of and am impressed by its growth.
I'm not here to sell you on it but like I wrote to the other person, it doesn't make sense for people to just want others to experience more of the pain they experience, the state is not a responsible party to have a piece of everyone's transactions. You should be asking why any of us are experiencing pain instead of ire at those who have an easier way to avoid the pain. Taxation is just one of the state's revenue models, its other methods can grow, additional methods can be employed, its spending can shrink, and right now all of its revenue is just going to pay the interest on debt it already accumulated. With that understanding I can't view proposals based on punitive hate seriously. You're proposing to give a degenerate spender more money, just because you found someone that's not paying the degenerate? And any amount you give the degenerate doesn't even pay down its debt, just the interest? And that just makes it more credit worthy to continue accumulating more debt? Not everyone needs to pay the degenerate, get in a place where you don't either.
Modern taxing authorities aren't even that old. It's hard for me to treat it as time immemorial because its not and you can influence how exposed you are to it.
That is result of some really insane laws that has been written about a million times. They have known that zillionaires are using it to avoid paying taxes altogether, even after death.
as soon as wealth of any sort is collateralized the tax code should treat it as liquid and tax it. preferably heavily.
Yeah if you borrow against it, IT IS REAL. The lender considered it real!
While I agree, there's something that feels unfair about double taxation.
Here's an idea:
- Capital gains become taxable when you borrow against an asset, proportionate to the amount borrowed. - The gains which have already been taxed are added to the asset's cost basis, so they're not taxed again on sale (basically same as sell and rebuy).
If the shares subsequently tank, you can carry forward the loss against future gains on the same asset, but can't claim a refund or offset unrelated gains (to avoid incentives to transfer value to a different company and dodge liability, etc.)
For example:
2000: I buy $1M of S&P 500 ETFs.
2026: They're worth $8.5M ($7.5M gain). I borrow $2M against them, effectively realising ~24% of the gains (~$1.75M), and pay CGT on that amount. My cost basis increases to $2.75M.
2030: I sell up for $10M. Instead of paying CGT on $9M of gains, I pay it on ~$7.25M, since the rest was already taxed.
It seems easier to just tax the loan as income unless it's a margin investment.
If they forced sell any stock that is has been held for more than a year on random dates and bought them back automatically, the whole scheme will be done for.
The problem of tax law is unintended consequences and subsequent more laws and loopholes and endless complexity to get it "right".
I borrowed against my house to buy it. Why shouldn't I be taxed when I got my mortgage?
If you are borrowing against unrealized appreciation of more than the $250k that is exempt for a primary residence, you should be.
If you are borrowing to buy the house in the first place, then all of the capital gains have already been taxed, so it's not analogous to this scenario.
Exactly. This is how IRAs already work. Taking a loan (beyond your basis) should count as realized income (while also adjusting your cost basis).
So are health insurance companies going to start collaborating with banks (who already KYC) - How likely are you to die before repaying this loan?
https://archive.ph/36hRo
The headline is editorialized way beyond what the article is about:
> A new survey of 57 of the world’s biggest private banks and other lenders, conducted by Deloitte and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, offers the fullest picture yet of this opaque corner of finance. Banks don’t always break out such lending on their balance sheets, and there is no central tally of how much is outstanding. The report finds that stock-based lending, better known as Lombard loans to borrowers in Europe and Asia, is increasingly available to those lower down the wealth scale.
> ...
> In mid-October, Charles Schwab said its pledged asset line product available to people with at least $100,000 in nonretirement assets drove a 35% surge in bank-loan balances, to $72.3 billion in the third quarter. A spokeswoman said usage grew after Schwab launched a fully digital process three years ago that can get the loans approved within minutes.
Mixing "buy, borrow and die" up with a pledged asset line is ridiculous and clickbait to the point of disrespect for the reader's intelligence. The former is a boutique product used by the uber-rich (net worth in 9 figures minimum) to get around estate tax. They're certainly not using a pledged asset line, which is available to you and me but doesn't do anything for estate taxes.
The cynical read into this is WSJ is trying to whitewash the "buy, borrow and die" strategy using "hey, if the same strategy available to the plebs, then it must be morally justified, right?"
Won't the people using this strategy end up paying a lot more (in terms of percent ownership of their holdings) in an extended downturn?
Finance capitalism, the root of all evil.
the financial sector is an ongoing construction project, going the direction of all items having an easy way to be valued to the minute, with the merchant and reseller having the same price instead of a wildly different one, all items then being able to be used as collateral instantly, fractionally sold as shares, and with a derivatives market on top
this project is not done, it’s not close to done, but improvements in this space have led to more people being able to access this lending market
I see that improving beyond publicly traded equity and real estate
That's technically cool; many nerds don't appreciate the wizardry that exists in finance. But this is really an ethical discussion. The "more people" are still the richest members of society, and society is far from fully meritocratic. Should we allow inequality to increase unchecked?
I can see arguments that the Walton family deserves to be ludicrously rich. I don't see why they should have access to tax avoidance strategies unavailable to Bertie the Janitor. I also don't see why someone merely Porsche-rich should have access to those, either.
I can see how this competes with a tax fairness idea
I think you would appreciate how this contributes to it, Bertie the Janitor should be able to use their kitchen table, furniture and objects around them as collateral too. This is the direction it’s all going as all the frictions to trade, liquidity and price discovery go away.
Regarding tax, the state is not a responsible spender with a balanced budget, its services are paid for by its bonds and the tax is one of many revenue sources to pay the interest the state owes. I’m writing that to point out that the ire is put towards the wrong participants. It doesn’t make sense to ask why we aren’t getting taken from equally, when why are we being taken from at all is also valid.
Driving one town over to pay a lower gas or sales tax is equally weighted as all other tax avoidance
Regarding the payments themselves, this strategy does involve paying the banks interest. As far as convenience goes in this article’s behavior, you’re either paying the government or you’re paying the bank. This is normal enough for me not to really have I guess the vitriol about it.
I see the different ways that people think about it, but it hasnt solved the state’s own borrowing and spending problem, and usually doesnt address that at all. They just want others to feel the same pain they feel, which doesnt make sense to me. I would be more aligned with proposals to address the state’s spending.
It is interesting, but also seems needlessly complex and of limited benefit to anyone not already at the top, and thus prone to cumulative errors and delusion which make the entire system brittle. So as someone not at the top, why should I do anything but oppose these "improvements"? I don't have ambitions of being a billionaire or weilding the power of nations, so how is this not a pure detriment to me?
> needlessly complex and of limited benefit to anyone not already at the top
you have things of value all around you, captured value that you cannot turn into cash because of its poor liquidity and poor institutions for that asset class, you don't need to be at the top. there is a collector of old concert tickets, a collector of your digital footprint, a collector of your furniture, a collector of the junk you've been hoarding. you just can't find those people, get a fair price, avoid getting scammed, or have any remedies if you did get scammed, compared to assets that institutional banks service. And because you can't, the banks can't either and have the same issues, hence why there is no lending market or way to mitigate risk.
I didn't write in this thread to have a contrarian view, it's a system I'm aware of and am impressed by its growth.
I'm not here to sell you on it but like I wrote to the other person, it doesn't make sense for people to just want others to experience more of the pain they experience, the state is not a responsible party to have a piece of everyone's transactions. You should be asking why any of us are experiencing pain instead of ire at those who have an easier way to avoid the pain. Taxation is just one of the state's revenue models, its other methods can grow, additional methods can be employed, its spending can shrink, and right now all of its revenue is just going to pay the interest on debt it already accumulated. With that understanding I can't view proposals based on punitive hate seriously. You're proposing to give a degenerate spender more money, just because you found someone that's not paying the degenerate? And any amount you give the degenerate doesn't even pay down its debt, just the interest? And that just makes it more credit worthy to continue accumulating more debt? Not everyone needs to pay the degenerate, get in a place where you don't either.
Modern taxing authorities aren't even that old. It's hard for me to treat it as time immemorial because its not and you can influence how exposed you are to it.