[1123581321]

That does not track for me. If someone has $20k in Schwab and chooses to use their credit card instead of selling stock and paying cash, I don't think they should have to pay taxes on that or suffer a criminal penalty. Same for taking on a car loan or a mortgage.

[creato]

If that's what was happening you'd be right but it isn't. Credit cards have high rates and low limits for a reason: they are unsecured credit. Loans with collateral are secured by the collateral, and it makes some sense that should be considered a realized gain for that collateral (or loss for that matter).

[__turbobrew__]

My bank will give me a 6 figure line of credit at prime+0.5% because they see all the assets I have (savings, cash, investments, mortgage). The line of credit is indirectly secured against all of the assets my bank can see.

Should I be taxed when I use the line of credit my bank extends to me?

[JumpCrisscross]

What OP is missing is the role of collateral. It becomes more important the more perilous the borrower is or might be.

Apple borrows for 20 years unsecured at 31 bps above the U.S. [1][2]. That wouldn't contract much if they offered collateral, because the difference in relative risk is modest to the point of immateriality. Similarly, someone with a century of living expenses in marketable securities really only needs to be restricted from blowing their stockpile--other risks are absorbed by that wealth.

TL; DR The rich don't need collateral as much as the middle class and poor. Penalise the use of collateralised loans like that, and you just make collaterised lending go away or become much more expensive.

[1] https://www.bondsupermart.com/bsm/bond-factsheet/US037833AT7...

[2] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...

[bdangubic]

> TL; DR The rich don't need collateral as much as the middle class and poor.

You really buy this? Elon could just go fetch $44bn from a bank to buy Twitter without anything to back it?

[consteval]

Yes, I would imagine it would be much easier for Elon to get 44bn as opposed to someone who is homeless.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Elon could just go fetch $44bn from a bank to buy Twitter without anything to back it?

Collateral "becomes more important the more perilous the borrower is or might be." It's immaterial to "someone with a century of living expenses."

Elon Musk could probably have borrowed even $100mm unsecured on terms damn close if not identical to that which he could get on a secured loan, ceteris paribus. But Elon is uniquely leveraged. That makes him a more perilous borrower. And $44bn isn't lifestyle borrowing, either.

Nevertheless, he could still probably get a hundred million lent unsecured on terms quite close to his secured rates--there are groups who would do that for relationship building alone.

[1123581321]

No difference if secured. You could add to my list of examples a home equity loan. Should that be taxed as a partial sale of the house? No.

Ask your credit union about the variety of loans they offer to regular people.

[gpderetta]

It gets more complicated. If you remortgage an house, should you pay CGT on any unrealized increase in value?