Did I say mandatory? I meant optional! You’re “free” to die in a cardboard box under a freeway as a market capitalist scarecrow warning to the other ants so they keep showing up to make us more!

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s not. Unrealised gains is basically an item in your shelf that hasn’t been sold, you can tell other people this item worth X now and you can get a loan with that item as a guarantee, but since you haven’t sell it and turn it into money, you still have $0 and an item that worth X. These people failed basic economic.

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      “can” vs “do” are different things. The meme quote describes hypothetical use, not actual use, as being something that should be taxable.

      • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        What you mean by “hypothetical use” vs “actual use”? In your own comment you mention nothing about “hypothetical use” yet here you talk about one, OOP also failed to mention anything about hypothetical use and only talk exclusively about unrealised gain. If unrealised gain(stock, asset, etc) is used to trade for another item, then yes, it’s already a realised gain, the tax should be levied on the item purchased or the asset sold, whichever makes sense. If the unrealised gain is used to secure a loan, then no, it shouldn’t be taxed because it’s only change hand on paper, and the loan came with interest, and you have to pay back that loan. Net worth is nothing but a dick measuring contest, taxing it makes no sense.

        So no, unrealised gain shouldn’t be taxed because it’s unrealised, it’s like taxing a grocery store’s unsold item.