partial_accumen

I believe you’re referring to rules on sale of a home where there is a capital gain, meaning you bought the house for $100k and sell it for $350k, no cap gains taxes. We’re in uncharted waters with what @bastion@feddit.nl is proposing. That user (possibly) suggesting it for HELOCs too.

You took payment of a sum of money, specifically related to unrealised gain. Therefore, the gains are realised.

I don’t think this is accurate. I’ll break down what I mean.

You took payment of a sum of money

Yes.

specifically related to unrealised gain

Yes.

Therefore, the gains are realised.

No. Gains realized would be an unambiguous outcome with zero question to the providence or final outcome. That isn’t what a loan against assets are. There is a third step you’re skipping.

A lender is making a business decision to absorb the risk of giving you money where they may not get their money back even with the asset you gave them. The value of the assets can change both positively (which would be immaterial to the lender) or negatively (which would absolutely be material to the lender).

In today’s rules it means that the lender would lose out if the borrower defaults, and the collateral asset sells for less than the loan amount. The only loser is the lender, and they are choosing to take that risk. The worst case scenario to the lender is losing 100% of the loaned amount (plus whatever trivial costs of administrative overhead for servicing the loan) because the asset is worthless.

In the rules you’re proposing (the worst case scenario) if the borrower defaults, the lender loses 100% of the loaned amount, the borrower loses 25%-33% of the value of the loan, and the government would gain 25%-33% of taxes on money that never existed because the asset is worthless.

I don’t agree with unrealized gains taxes in general, but the instant they are used as collateral, or if value in any way is extracted from them (even loan value), they become realized gains, and should be taxed.

What you’re suggesting would also mean you’re advocating for middle class homeowners to be taxed on a full value of a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) even if they haven’t spent a dime of it yet. Was that your intention?

Expectations are really that low that all it would take is listening.

If she listened then did nothing, then the message would be she’s heartless after hearing about all the suffering.

There was no way to win this for Harris. Politically she did the right thing for the campaign.

Vance said that under Donald Trump’s plan, Americans wouldn’t be put “into the same risk pools.” In other words, healthier young people wouldn’t be in the same risk pool as older people more likely to need medical care, lowering costs for younger Americans.

If this statement is true to their plan there’s a bigger implication that should worry more than 50% of Americans.

Americans wouldn’t be put “into the same risk pools.”

Men wouldn’t be in the same risk pool as women. Guess which group has higher overall health insurance because one group has a much more complicated and functional reproductive system?

For those that don’t remember life before the reforms put in place, men were charged a small fraction of health insurance premiums compared to women. I remember as a young man when I learned this by comparing my pay stub with a woman coworker that was the same age as me at the time. We were both in our early 20s. To reiterate; we were the same age, same employer, same insurance company, same plan, the only difference was gender.

I was paying $23 every two weeks. She was paying $110.

I was shocked and embarrassed. I fully supported the reforms that lead men and women to paying equal rates even though that meant I had to pay much more than I had in the past.

The GOP have been huffing “traditional family values” for so long they thought everyone did too. They make a jab at Harris for not fitting the traditional family values, which they thought would land with the public, but it fell flat because “traditional family values” includes the subjugation of women, abuse of children, and a big helping of toxic masculinity. Naturally those ideas are rejected by the majority of Americans today.

The GOP got high on their on supply.

The first “sorry” is sorry as in “I’m sorry you found that offensive” which isn’t a genuine expression of sorrow, nor is it an apology.

The statement said withhold Medicaid for states banning IVF. Aka if you ban IVF, the bill would punish the state by withholding Medicaid. Seems to be the opposite of what Republicans want with IVF.

I see your confusion: (many) Republicans want to ban IVF.

Look at the title of this post we’re in. “Republicans block Senate Democrats’ IVF bill”. That bill protects IVF, and the republicans shot it down.

He freezes in shock when someone discovers and destroys one of his Horcruxes.

But that’s not what that statement says.

I read the OP again. I read your statement again. I’m not seeing a different meaning than the one I came away with and commented on originally.

What are you saying the statement says that my comments contradict?

that would withhold Medicaid funding from states that ban IVF, but it was blocked by Democrats.

Withholding Medicaid funding doesn’t seem like a great idea. But on the whole being against banning IVF seems like a good idea. Am I missing something?

Republicans don’t want to secure IVF and don’t want to pay for Medicaid. GOP state’s would happily block IVF to get Medicaid defunded.

This is my new head canon.

Embarrassment suggests he has a sense of shame. He has already conducted a number of shameful acts already (taking gifts) without any sense he’s embarrassed.

There were multiple weddings that day. That was from a prior ceremony for bit players that weren’t important to the story.

Putin is having some money troubles of his own right now. Banks in China are refusing to complete bank transactions with russia.

Legally they cannot. Also, domestic violence happens to men too.

I’d like to know how close I was and in what ways I can become a more interesting candidate, but nobody is going to give me a realistic answer.

I can tell you from the employer side there is nothing to gain by answering this question asked by a candidate, and everything to lose which is why you the candidate almost never hear a response.

There are some legally protected reasons you cannot be turned down for a job. Its all the stuff you’d think of: race, religion, marital status, sex, age, etc. The likelihood you were turned down because of one of these illegal reasons is usually very low in the USA. I’m proud to say for the hiring efforts I’ve been a part of, these have never been considered criteria for disqualifying a candidate. Its always been for things like lack of knowledge/education, criminal history (example multi-DUI for a job that requires driving or conviction of embezzling when put in charge of company finances ), etc.

However, any documented reason a prospective employer gives back to a candidate becomes a liability. Will that candidate sue the company claiming that they weren’t hired because they think the position required some not married, which would be a crime of the employer?

I take it you’ve never seen what kind of damage and desecration a cat can do to a couch?

Don’t ask him about the fate of his first love. Its still a tenders spot. No amount of upholstery will remove that damage.

Vyacheslav Volodin, the chairman of the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, and a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, said Moscow would be forced to use “more powerful and destructive weapons” against Ukraine if Kyiv started firing long-range Western missiles at Russia.

Hey Vyacheslav, what weapons besides nuclear (and maybe biological) weapons does russia have that it hasn’t used against Ukraine already? Do you think if you use a nuclear weapon against Ukraine that that ends the war? Do you think the rest of the world will just say “welp, I guess russia used a nuke, better let them have Ukraine now”. Not even close.

I can’t make long distance calls anymore. Anyone else having problems with their Blue Box?