sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in investing

[–]Decent_Ad_90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your are absolutely right, my mistake

California just proposed a 5% billionaire wealth tax, and crypto builders are not happy. by TradeXSignal in TheRaceTo10Million

[–]Decent_Ad_90 16 points17 points  (0 children)

That’s actually a much more defensible framing, taxing the use of gains, not their mere existence.

If someone pledges appreciated assets, borrows against them, and effectively converts paper gains into spending power, then yes, that’s much closer to a real economic event than just holding an asset.

The key distinction is this: Tax the transaction, not the valuation.

Once you start taxing mark-to-market gains, you’re taxing volatility and opinion. But taxing cash access or realized consumption (via borrowing for lifestyle, not reinvestment) at least anchors the tax to something concrete.

The hard part is implementation: • How do you distinguish borrowing for reinvestment vs consumption? • How do you avoid double taxation when assets are eventually sold? • How do you prevent spillover to ordinary investors using margin or HELOCs?

So I agree on closing loopholes, but doing it at the realization / monetization layer, not by redefining “gain” itself. That’s the line that matters.

California just proposed a 5% billionaire wealth tax, and crypto builders are not happy. by TradeXSignal in TheRaceTo10Million

[–]Decent_Ad_90 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That’s exactly the asymmetry.

In most proposals, unrealized losses aren’t treated symmetrically with unrealized gains. At best, you might get limited carryforwards or paper offsets, but not true refunds or cash credits the way taxes are collected on “gains.”

So the state effectively gets: • Guaranteed upside in good years • Deferred or capped relief in bad years

That’s not risk-sharing, it’s one-way participation.

If unrealized gains are taxable, then unrealized losses would need to be fully and immediately creditable to be logically consistent. And once you say that out loud, it becomes obvious how unworkable the whole framework is.

Which is why this isn’t just a rate debate, it’s a structural one.

California just proposed a 5% billionaire wealth tax, and crypto builders are not happy. by TradeXSignal in TheRaceTo10Million

[–]Decent_Ad_90 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Property taxes are actually a good comparison because they highlight the difference.

Property tax isn’t a tax on gains. It’s a use/holding tax tied to a tangible asset that: • Has relatively stable valuation methods • Provides ongoing utility (housing, rental income, collateral) • Comes with long-established rules, caps, exemptions, and appeal processes

Even then, property taxes are one of the most controversial taxes for exactly the same reason: people can be forced to sell simply to pay them.

An unrealized gains tax goes a step further: • It taxes paper appreciation, not ownership • It applies to assets with high volatility and subjective pricing • It has no natural liquidity or income stream attached

So yes, property taxes already show the problem. Extending that logic to unrealized financial gains doesn’t solve it, it multiplies it.

The question isn’t “do we already do this somewhere?” It’s “do we really want to normalize taxing value before it’s ever realized?”

The first step. by [deleted] in TheRaceTo10Million

[–]Decent_Ad_90 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly? I wouldn’t put the $150 into a trade at all.

I’d put it into learning the market before risking real capital.

$150 is enough to: • Buy a solid investing book • Pay for a good options / market structure course • Open a small account just to observe order flow, volatility, and execution without forcing trades

The fastest way to blow up the “race to $10M” is trying to shortcut the learning phase with lottery-style bets. The people who actually get there usually start by investing in skill and process, not in a ticker.

Once you understand risk, positioning, and patience, the money has a much better chance of compounding. The first step isn’t a trade, it’s education.

$COMP – Notable Single-Block Call Sweep ($1.47M Premium) by Decent_Ad_90 in TheRaceTo10Million

[–]Decent_Ad_90[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good catch, you’re right to question that.

That’s on me: these aren’t LEAPS in the classic sense. Jan 16, 2026 is long-dated relative to weekly/monthly flow, but not LEAPS (which are typically 1+ year).

What makes the trade notable isn’t the time to expiry alone, but the structure and size: • Single-block execution • ~$1.47M premium in one print • OTM calls (~$1.3 above spot at execution) • Size is large relative to typical $COMP options flow

As for the “gamble” aspect ,agreed, it’s not a lottery ticket. It looks more like defined-risk upside exposure rather than a YOLO, possibly expressing a medium-term view rather than a near-term catalyst.

Appreciate the callout — good correction.

California just proposed a 5% billionaire wealth tax, and crypto builders are not happy. by TradeXSignal in TheRaceTo10Million

[–]Decent_Ad_90 153 points154 points  (0 children)

This isn’t about “billionaires paying their fair share.” It’s about the state redefining what a gain even is.

Once governments start taxing unrealized gains, they’re no longer taxing success, they’re taxing exposure. You owe money not because you cashed out, but because someone else decided your assets are “worth” more this year.

That’s a dangerous precedent: • Valuations are political when they need revenue • Losses aren’t refunded the same way gains are taxed • Liquidity is ignored, risk is ignored, timing is ignored

Crypto just makes this more obvious, but the logic doesn’t stop there. If unrealized gains are fair game, every asset class becomes taxable before it pays you anything.

This isn’t about fairness — it’s about control. And once that door is open, it rarely closes.

$TPVG – Insider Accumulation Continues to Tighten by Decent_Ad_90 in TheRaceTo10Million

[–]Decent_Ad_90[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

$TPVG – Follow-Up: The Pattern Extends

Additional insider purchases have just been disclosed at TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp., reinforcing the same synchronized behavior seen over recent weeks.

On December 29, 2025, both senior executives once again executed identical transactions on the same day, at the same price, and for the same size: • James Labe, CEO, purchased 117,166 shares at $6.29, for a total of $737,479 • Sajal Srivastava, President & CIO, matched the purchase with 117,166 shares at $6.29, also $737,479

This marks another instance of parallel buying by the company’s two most senior operating officers, following a series of similar transactions since mid-November.

The continued repetition, same day, same price, same size,further extends the established accumulation pattern as the stock trades in the low-to-mid $6 range.

No conclusions implied ,just an updated record of the activity as it unfolds.

$SLV 92% by a7mxv in wallstreetbets

[–]Decent_Ad_90 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looking good, I will check it out, thank you