• MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        No, since you didn’t make any money and were not taxed. Also, the bond issuer is now in bankruptcy and/or being sued into bankruptcy. I might even get back the principle depending on the output of the legal proceedings.

      • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        Lol! Ya got me! Yeah, autocorrect is a bitch, and I failed to verify the text. Socks = stocks. (And it tried to change it to sticks that time).

    • jtrek@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      It depends on the details of the implementation. There are many possible solutions.

      If we change it so the rule is like “if you use stock as collateral to get a loan, that is income and taxed as such” then no. You might just default on your loan, but that’s kind of on you and the bank for using a volatile asset as collateral.

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      What happens to the property taxes you paid when your property value tanks? Do you get a tax refund then? No? Then no.

        • acargitz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Taxes are not injustice. And being unsympathetic to the risks that the owning class has to endure is not …“hatred”. More money, more problems, cry me a river.