• comfydecal@infosec.pub
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    So if everyone in the US stops buying publically traded companies, it would bankrupt the top 10%?

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Only if you’re including the top 10%. The vast majority of retail investing makes little difference even when combined, in comparison to institutional investing.

  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Seems weird to make this assertion, and fail to provide what the total holdings cutoff is to be in the top 10%.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        154k is middle class. And everyone in this thread is trying to figure out how to fuck them the hardest.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      tax. every. trade.

      What is the justification for taxing a trade that lost money? Said person certainly didn’t generate an income from that trade.

      How much would you even tax for a trade that lost money?

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The same justification as when you place a bet on black in vegas, it comes up red, and the house takes all the chips you bet.

        You can call greed “rational self-interest” and gambling “speculative investment” all you like, but trying to change the language doesn’t change the reality.

        When you’re gambling, you might lose, and society shouldn’t subsidize the days you gamble and lose. Only income derived through labor should be truly safe, as labor is useful to civilization, unlike gambling, often with winnings from previous gambling gained using loaded market influence dice and marked insider information cards.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          The closest we come to “society” “subsidizing” stock losses is via capital loss deductions. Assuming you aren’t doing particularly crazy tax shenanigans, you are looking at up to 3000 dollars deducted from your taxes per year. For reference, the standard deduction is 13850 for an individual as of 2023.

          But the thing about capital gains and losses are that they are only actually a thing when you cash out of the stock market. This means you are actually encouraged to “sell” your shares in a failing company and use it to invest in a company “on the rise”. Which is actually good.

          What you are proposing would, ironically, mean only the super rich would be able to trade stocks to begin with. And they would only invest in the “guaranteed” companies like MS and the like which would hurt a lot of medium sized companies and workers.

          Also, this all forgets that the vast majority of retirement schemes (even pensions when you look at where the money comes from) are based on investing in stocks. In large part because the idea is to benefit from an overall better economy.

          So yeah… your statement about “betting on black” makes no sense and your proposed solution only hurts all but the super-rich.

          • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            But the thing about capital gains and losses are that they are only actually a thing when you cash out of the stock market.

            Oh hey guys we can’t tax the wealth of the rich because their wealth isn’t in the form of sequential 2 dollar bills and simon didn’t say so it doesn’t count as wealth!

            Of course it helps when Wall Street sends lobbyists to make the tax code work to their advantage.

            We should have a wealth tax on net worth, if they don’t like cashing out stock to pay it, tough. It is completely workable, but since the oligarch class owns our government, don’t worry, it’ll never happen.

            Also this story directly addresses where most of the benefits of this rigged con-game of an economy goes, and most Americans haven’t had significant pensions for a long time.

            • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Following this line of thought - sacrificed alot and you now own a house (shocking in this market I know). Its value goes up 100k in a year due to forces out of your control. You now owe 30k in additional tax.

              Should you now be forced to sell your home if you can’t pay this tax?

              Following it further- you have a bank account. You save 20k. You now have an asset that is increasing in value - do you now owe tax on this?

              There is a bloody good reason taxes are paid when gains are realised, or more accurately when money changes hands.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                No. Primary residences are always protected from tax agents. Nobody is going to be made homeless by a wealth tax. Take your fearmongering elsewhere.

                • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Primary residences are always protected from tax agents.

                  Primary residences are absolutely not protected from tax agents. They can and are sold to cover unpaid taxes. While it is true they don’t do it often and will sieze every other asset you own first, that commonly leads to loosing your home as well. Good luck paying your mortgage when you don’t have a car to drive to work anymore and all the funds in your bank account are frozen.

                  "if you have unpaid taxes, the IRS has the right to seize your home through a tax levy. If the IRS seizes your home for unpaid taxes, it uses the money from the sale to cover the cost of seizing and selling the property. Then, it applies the remainder to your tax bill. You can apply for a refund if there’s any money left. " https://taxcure.com/tax-problems/tax-levy/home-seizure

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      If you mean a small tax per share when purchased then that would be a great idea. Make high frequency trading, that contributes zero to society, unprofitable. It wouldn’t hurt household investors as the tax would be small but it would hurt the assholes who manipulate prices through trading back and forth.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        High frequency trading is fully automated insider trading done in broad daylight, but nothing gets done about it because most people don’t understand what it is. It shouldn’t be taxed; it should be illegal.

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s a long and convoluted route from that to their 401ks not bring as plump as they could be. Indirect robbery of thousands is more palatable than being mugged for a few dollars.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Abolishing the stock market in general would be nice, or at least moving towards that direction gradually. The wealthy don’t typically get their money from great trading, but parking their money and letting it grow.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The stock market itself isn’t the problem either though, it’s that the wealthy have money and the poor do not. If you want to buy a house and you don’t have the cash for it, you need to borrow from someone…and that means someone who has a lot of money. And you’ll pay interest for the privilege because there is a time value of money. That doesn’t go away without a stock market.

        The real solution is to tax the wealth itself, either directly or through taxing the step-up in value after the owner of a stock dies, or a massively increased estate tax.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The stock market shouldn’t be abolished without also abolishing other aspects of Capitalism, yes. Workers must currently take advantage of everything they can within the current system. However, people should be striving towards worker ownership of the Means of Production, and keeping the stock market would allow Capitalism to resurface.