What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Status
Not open for further replies.
LynahFan said:
Yes, but not unless the bank appraises your house and certifies that it’s worth what you say it is. Who certifies Tesla’s stock value?
Click to expand...

Nobody "certifies" it. The market sets the current value of the stock, which is exactly the same way homes are appraised. Appraisers value homes by looking at comparable sales, and adjusting the data to fit the house being appraised. That's what the stock market tells you, comparable sales of Tesla stock today.

When you want to borrow money from a bank and use your house as collateral, the bank will be happy to do so, but probably not for the entire appraised value of the home. I suspect most lenders will lend you up to 80% or 90% of the value. They do so, knowing certain historical facts. First, the value of a home, properly maintained, will generally increase over time. Second, the fluctuations in that value are generally slow, either up or down. Third, the home may decrease in value, at least temporarily, but probably not by more than 10 or 20%.

With stock, it's a completely different risk analysis. On the other hand, if someone wants to borrow $3 billion, they probably don't have a home they can put up as collateral for that debt. What they might have, however, is $30 billion in stock, at today's market rate.

I guarantee you that if Musk owned six square blocks in Manhattan, free and clear, and wanted to borrow $3 billion, the banks would insist on the land collateral long before they'd take the stock as collateral. You take what's available and evaluate whether you're willing to take on that risk. They are probably banking on the fact that the stock isn't going to pull a WorldCom, but if it does, some banker somewhere is going to lose his job.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
My property taxes are taxed at what the house is worth, not what I paid for the house.

So, sorry, this analogy doesn't work for me.
Click to expand...

You would use a house as collateral for a loan based on what the bank estimates its current value to be (and how much they feel that value might fluctuate), as that is what they would need to fall back on if you default.

You would use stocks as collateral based on what the bank estimates its current value to be (and how much they feel that value might fluctuate), as that is what they would need to fall back on if you default.

I don't really see how property taxes come into play at all here. It is an additional cost to hold the asset each year, sure; but the issue in debate here is whether you get taxed on the change in value of the asset over time versus all at once when you sell the asset, and then which value of the asset you could borrow against; so property taxes are a completely different thing altogether.
 
French Rage said:
You would use a house as collateral for a loan based on what the bank estimates its current value to be (and how much they feel that value might fluctuate), as that is what they would need to fall back on if you default.

You would use stocks as collateral based on what the bank estimates its current value to be (and how much they feel that value might fluctuate), as that is what they would need to fall back on if you default.

I don't really see how property taxes come into play at all here. It is an additional cost to hold the asset each year, sure; but the issue in debate here is whether you get taxed on the change in value of the asset over time versus all at once when you sell the asset, and then which value of the asset you could borrow against; so property taxes are a completely different thing altogether.
Click to expand...

If the government can tax real property based on an assessed value, why can't it tax personal property (like stocks, bonds, art, etc) based on an assessed value?
 
French Rage said:
You would use a house as collateral for a loan based on what the bank estimates its current value to be (and how much they feel that value might fluctuate), as that is what they would need to fall back on if you default.

You would use stocks as collateral based on what the bank estimates its current value to be (and how much they feel that value might fluctuate), as that is what they would need to fall back on if you default.

I don't really see how property taxes come into play at all here. It is an additional cost to hold the asset each year, sure; but the issue in debate here is whether you get taxed on the change in value of the asset over time versus all at once when you sell the asset, and then which value of the asset you could borrow against; so property taxes are a completely different thing altogether.
Click to expand...

Then, we need a form of property tax on all capital. Not just homes. Period.
 
unofan said:
If the government can tax real property based on an assessed value, why can't it tax personal property based on an assessed value?
Click to expand...

Well there's two things to differentiate here:
- Taxing it (each year) on its ongoing change in value.
- Taxing it (each year) holding it.

Our talk of unrealized gains is the former; property tax is the latter. We don't do the former, regardless of whether the asset is securities or property; we only do the latter if the asset is property. Should we do the latter is the asset is a security? That's another debate altogether and would be a good one to have. But it doesn't change the fact that homes and stock would currently get the same treatment vis-a-vis their unrealized gains and use as collateral, which was the issue here.
 
Last edited:
"Taxing it (each year) on it's perceived value" should work. I don't think they get taxed on stock value AT ALL until it's sold. That's what property taxes do.
 
El Salvador has bought the dip. 500 coins at $30,700

El Salvador has a bad track record of "buying the dip"

FSVr_eHWQAEBr8o


"Alexa, what's the price of Bitcoin?"
$28,700

In order to steal this much wealth from El Salvador America used to need death squads. Now we just need 1's and 0's

Special message for all new crypto enthusiasts:

FSiGYYGXIAAMVdG
 
I think one of the main reasons why many companies closing now is that they didn't adapt on time to the new business reality. Very quick growth of technology should be used and implemented in all the business processes if we want to keep or even increase our profit. Digital transformation is not an easy thing to do but it is definitely a necessary step to success. In case we can not manage to do it ourselves there are professional services which can help us with this process.
 
Last edited:
Last month, workers at Tesla's Shanghai Gigafactory were required to sleep at the facility as production resumed following a three-week shutdown, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the matter. A memo, which Bloomberg reported, indicated that each worker would be provided with a sleeping bag and an air mattress and expected to work 12-hour shifts with one day off per week.
Click to expand...

Bring on the sweatshops!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top