I.e, did you buy for $200k and sell for $130, or had you bought for $200k and sold for $330 which was $70k under the current market value?
The latter isn't a loss; and likely wouldn't be even for a corporation. You'd have to sell at full value and donate the $70k or something to get it to "work".
Amusingly enough, if one of the 87k IRS agents hears about it, they could go after the deserving family for taxes on the $70k windfall they got (though this one is really hard to prove, they will do it on forgiven loans).
It cuts both ways. Had you had a gain, you would not have had to pay taxes on the gains. If you had it as an investment, you would.
> Houses are meant to trap and enslave common people. It decreases their mobility and roots them in areas they otherwise would want to leave. When you gain money from a house, there are all kinds of benefits. When you lose money as an owner, there are no protections for you.
Hyperbole. For the majority of folks, home ownership outweighs the costs. Often significantly.
Little did I know when I went to claim the loss on my taxes: I could not claim the loss at all. Since it was an owner occupied house and not a house owned by a corporation, it did not count as a loss I could deduct from my income nor from my capital gains.
Houses are meant to trap and enslave common people. It decreases their mobility and roots them in areas they otherwise would want to leave. When you gain money from a house, there are all kinds of benefits. When you lose money as an owner, there are no protections for you.
The system is a racket designed to continuously inflate home prices.
Everyone participating in it should be ashamed for making their children serfs & homeless while they live in castles.