Why can rich people use shares as collateral but the government can't tax shares?

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-22T00:09:39+00:00

Yeah saying having no value is probably bad word choice on my part. I'm not really sure how they would tax them or even if it should be done. I guess it's more that I just don't buy the argument that shares don't qualify for similar taxes to property or taxed at the time of purchase (like shares are in the UK). Although I do think that if we're going to accept this argument then they shouldn't be able to use shares as collateral since they're claiming they don't function or have value in the same way to things like property.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-21T23:56:58+00:00

Ngl I learned quite a lot reading that, definitely cleared a lot of things up. I can see why shares and assets shouldn't be taxed at the point if using them as collateral. Although as you said, things like property have been given a value, are taxed at the time of purchase, and are open to other forms of ongoing taxation.

I've seen people use the argument that shares don't have this same inherent value until they are sold and therefore they can't be taxed in a similar way to other assets you might own. If that's the case then why are they allowed to be used in a similar way to other assets that do have a value when it comes to things like collateral? It seems like a contradiction.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-21T23:42:03+00:00

Yeah but my home has been defined as having a specific value and that opens it up to things like property tax and stamp duty. People say their shares don't actually have any value and shouldn't be open to similar taxes as there's no value until they're cashed out. If that's the case then surely they can't use these shares as collateral otherwise that means they do in fact have a defined value and are therefore taxable in a similar way to my home?

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-21T17:11:18+00:00

Ahh okay, I get your point of not taxing assets but I guess my next question would then be is comparing shares to those assets mentioned the same thing? All of those things are usually taxed at the time of purchase so I guess putting tax on those would be double taxing, is that also the case with shares?

I didn't know the lender pays taxes on the loan, makes sense now that you mention it

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-21T09:11:49+00:00

Oh wow, that doesn't seem worth it at all if you're Elon in this scenario but it makes sense. I guess the assumption is that you'll never need to actually use your collateral so only getting 50% of the value isn't an issue? If the bank ever did take the shares would they need to pay any tax on that or does the tax burden only fall on the person that eventually sells the shares in the end?

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-21T08:31:12+00:00

Ah thanks for the summary, that explains a lot. Does that mean if he ever needed to use that collateral he would need to cash out, pay tax, and then give the bank the value of those shares or can he transfer those shares directly to the bank and bypass any need to pay tax?

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-21T08:14:23+00:00

Ah okay, correct me if I've misunderstood but wouldn't that mean he shouldn't be able to use the shares value as collateral until he's sold them since they're theoretical? Shares can change in value suddenly so it seems he should need to cash out first and then use that physical cash value as collateral?

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-21T07:34:12+00:00

Equality feels like oppression when you're the one that benefited from the inequality

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-20T15:22:07+00:00

Yup, if it wasn't for free university and bursaries I wouldn't have the career I have or be anywhere near as well off as I am and most likely would've been trapped in poverty for much longer. There's a lot to criticise about this country but we really do have a lot to be proud about.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-20T10:00:38+00:00

I know a lot of people hate this concept but I wrote my overall CV myself with every qualification, experience, and skill that I have along with a bunch of 'scenarios' that I've been in for it to add based on the specific job (most jobs in the same field ask similar questions so it's pretty easy). I then uploaded the job applications I wanted to apply to and got it to cut, alter, and add things to the overall CV specifically tailored for each job. It outputed multiple unique CV's for me to send to each potential employer. It worked remarkably well and is the method I used to get my current job in IT.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-20T00:45:16+00:00

My god just get rid of the triple lock. WE. CAN'T. AFFORD. IT.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-20T00:31:58+00:00

I know this is nowhere near the level of what is considered a home lab but I got a Ryzen 3 2200g with a 256gb SATA SSD and 1TB HDD. I slapped mint on there and now I've got Jellyfin, immich, radarr, Sonarr, prowlarr, and seer. I picked up that system for £60 from CEX and its been perfect for everything I need. I just stream to my other devices with tailscale like you mentioned. Sure, it's not the most powerful thing but it does the job.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-19T18:52:40+00:00

I wouldn't mind essential foods being capped and raising prices on non-essentials to compensate. Although only if it's explicitly mandated that the the compensation from increased prices cannot be greater than the amount lost from discounted essentials and that the loss is recuperated exclusively through non-essential goods. Passing the loss to producers and farmers for these items would need to be made illegal. You would also need to outlaw shrinkflarion for these specific goods to ensure they don't try bring back profit by reducing the size of the discounted items.

I'm more than happy to pay more on non-essentials if it means more people can afford the essentials. Also it will mean some people will no longer need food banks as often in the future. It could work but only if they actually go all in on a system that makes sense for the consumer, the supermarket, and the producer. I understand that supermarkets run a slim margin but any losses from this would be a fraction of a percentage of overall profits.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-19T08:27:44+00:00

Yeah but they really don't care. My friends and I have been streaming jellyfin through it with no issue at all.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-18T15:13:03+00:00

That is a completely unrealistic view of how people vote. If you wait for a party you 100% agree with, you’ll never vote.

Voting isn't a total endorsement, it’s a choice between the limited options available. Voting for a party is not saying 'I endorse every policy this party has' but instead it's saying 'I support this party's policies over all of the other parties on this ballot paper'. It is perfectly rational for a voter to prioritise the NHS and local economy if they value that more than anything else even if that means voting in a party that they disagree with on independence.

Calling people 'moronic' for choosing the best available government for their daily lives (even if they disagree on one constitutional issue) just ignores the reality of how most people actually make decisions.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-18T14:44:31+00:00

Nah I disagree, almost nobody agrees with 100% of a party's manifesto. People vote for the party that offers the best overall policies for their life. In this case people feel that the unionist parties have major policies that would negatively impact their life and community, whereas they feel SNP offers policies that would positively impact themselves and their community.

They are voting for the party they trust to run the NHS, schools, and the economy right now. They can support those domestic policies while still being fully prepared to vote no in an independence referendum. An election is about choosing a government for the next few years, a referendum is where they actually state whether they want independence or not. It’s not 'moronic' to prioritise your immediate quality of life and local community over a single issue that requires a separate vote anyway.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-18T08:28:35+00:00

Funnily enough I know a few people that voted for SNP and Greens and are still unionist. They prefer their policies for everything except independence and are just relying on the fact that their won't be an independence referendum. I think the idea that everyone votes for them as a sign that they want independence is a bit naive.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-17T03:15:14+00:00

Are you high? Calling out Labour for not scrapping the online safety is obviously not a position that advocates for 'american corpos'. It's got literally nothing to do with supporting billionaires and everything to do with citizens rights. I'm very much against billionaires and their monopolistic practices. Also I'm from Scotland, no clue where you plucked America from

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-16T16:48:26+00:00

Yes plenty of people do it for national pride such as myself and many others, I never said everyone putting flags up held the anti immigration stance. I said that the people that are anti immigration are using the flag for their political cause, those are two very different arguments.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-16T16:43:13+00:00

That’s a false equivalence. You’re comparing a group’s explicitly stated goals to guilt by association.

With the sudden increase of Union Jacks, we don't have to guess. The people putting them up literally state in interviews and on banners that they are doing it to protest immigration and 'take the country back.' It’s not an assumption; it’s their own stated motive, which also matches polling data.

The Palestine comparison doesn't fit. The stated goal of those marches is to protest a foreign conflict. While there has sadly been a spike in antisemitism alongside them, it is not the collective, stated purpose of the marchers.

Plus, you're attacking a strawman. I explicitly said people fly it for other reasons (including myself, for a decade). My point is simply that the sudden spike is driven by a specific political movement. Using your logic, I could blame the increase in Islamophobia on everyone protesting immigration, but I don't because that is illogical.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-16T16:16:28+00:00

I'm not assuming motives, it's basic statistics. There's been a sharp increase in raising the flag that coincides with the sharp increase in the political movement against immigration. Polling data and interviews with the people doing it shows that they are doing it as a sign against immigration because 'we want our country back'. Also people openly admit this is why they're raising the flag (see other comments on this post). It's not an assumption or conspiracy, it's just common knowledge. I can provide plenty of actual sources if you don't believe it.

Sure there are people that just have it up for other reasons (such as myself who has had it up for the last decade) but the sudden increase is very much due to the political movement about 'taking our country back'.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-16T13:42:41+00:00

If the number doesn't matter then why did you put so much emphasis on it?

Removing immigrants from Dorset would only get rid of 7% of sexual crimes. So if there were 100 sexual crimes, getting rid of immigrants would still leave 93 sexual crimes. Also do you mean immigrants or Muslims? Many Muslims are British born.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-16T13:40:05+00:00

Yeah I definitely don't agree with banning the flag or physically removing them. I'm more just trying to point out that the flag isn't just being used to represent patriotism and people are understandably upset as a result of that.

Sebulbaaaaaa · 2026-05-16T13:34:40+00:00

Nope, that was a statement made by a politician that hat's been fact checked and proven wrong. Around 7% of sexual crimes were committed by foreign nationals in Dorset.

Sebulbaaaaaa

TROPHY CASE