this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2026
1163 points (99.2% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

15637 readers
849 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Tax portfolio loans over a certain amount. That’s pretty much it. Sure, there will need to be some moving parts beyond that, but basically if you treat a loan as an income rather than something like a primary residence purchase in the buyer’s own name, it gets taxed.

[–] NannerBanner@literature.cafe 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think the 'unrealized assets' should be taxed as 'realized' if they are used as collateral. Yes, it would affect the reverse mortgages and such, or home equity loans, but fuck it, I'd take those relatively small pains against the massive societal gains.

[–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago

Reverse Mortgages are usually predatory anyway, so more scrutiny and regulation isn't a bad thing.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes, this. Tax collateral as advance on capital gains and the whole incentive to dodge taxes with loans go away and it remains fair too

You could make exceptions for loans taken to improve the same asset (home improvement loans) but you'd have to pass strict audits to get the exception approved

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t know what the financial consequences would be. Taxing unrealized assets would also have to have limits because so many retirement funds and the like are unrealized gains, we don’t want to hurt people’s ability to retire. That’s why putting a tax on trying to sidestep paying capital gains makes more sense. We’re not going to figure out how that all works here today. People won’t sit on unrealized gains, they're going to have to use them in some fashion even if just as collateral, and we need to tax whatever workarounds they use to make those funds work for them.

[–] Leonardo_da_Vinci@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The rule applies for people with billion dollars of assets.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

They divest the assets into holding companies, like they already do, held by LLCs.

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 0 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Then make it also apply for LLC, or for everyone except (list). I mean every set can be quantified.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago

No. Not every set can be quantified. This is real life. You have a limited amount of resources and manpower and you have to get the most money with that limited pool.

The less resources you have, the lesser and more imprecise your information becomes. Solutions that require even more precise tracking of even more entities, with endless resources for legal battles, is the opposite of a solution.

They need to fund the feds and give them enough to effectively use the tools they already have.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

But then LLc’s can also be legit businesses, and sometimes moving money to an LLc can be a legit investment in a company and not just a shell.

Look, I already said there’s a lot of moving parts here and and we’re not going to solve it on Lemmy, so no need to keep getting in the weeds over this issue.