Did I say mandatory? I meant optional! You’re “free” to die in a cardboard box under a freeway as a market capitalist scarecrow warning to the other ants so they keep showing up to make us more!

  • Goodie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    22 hours ago

    There’s a very good reason they should be taxed; half a dozen people are richer than god, and basically never pay any real amount of tax.

    • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      22 hours ago

      This would effectively lock out every small investor from the stock market due to the liability of both success and failure.

      • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I mean the stock market is literally gambling, so the risk of success and failure is already there. The proposal is whether or not we should allow people to use unrealized gains to secure loans without having to pay taxes on said gains at the point of taking the loan. This would only occur if you’re worth more than 100 million. You can afford to pay that tax.

        • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I mean the stock market is literally gambling

          I’ve a better record of success than the most successful poker players. Is it ten years of good luck or the consequences of effort and skill?

          The proposal is whether or not we should allow people to use unrealized gains to secure loans without having to pay taxes on said gains at the point of taking the loan.

          Thus locking out all non-corporate investors from margin, prerequisite to options, prerequisite to risk mitigation and gains enhancement. The average investor looses the freedom to do much more than DCA a fund.

          This would only occur if you’re worth more than 100 million.

          1. It’ll never be passed in such a way. Legislation always favors the corporate and wealthy as they’re the ones that write it. It’s most perverse in finance and investment. There’s been nothing favoring human investors since the breakup of Ma Bell.

          2. It’s totally inadequate to save the republic from the nearly-unmitigated, algorithmically-optimized capitalism that exists today. The biggest fish, corporations, would simply get bigger by eating their biggest threat: humans with a lot of resources, but not the most affluent.

          The stock market is a tool. It’s not the cause.

          TL;DR:

          The neolib’s proposal is crap.

          This isn’t:

          1. legislate away most of corporate personhood

          2. restore the Glass-Steagall Act

          3. repeal the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act

      • Goodie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        How so?

        “Oh no, I made money, better put a small percentage of my gains away for tax season, just like I do with all of my income, because I’m American and lack a good PAYE system”.

          • Goodie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Someone here has made a false assumption. In fact, I’m pretty sure we both have made several. The question is who has made a fatal false assumption? Let’s go.

            My root comment, at the top of all of this, was my idea that perhaps we should consider gains “realized” when they are sold OR used as a collateral in a loan.

            Your assertion is that it would wipe out small investors.

            I would question how many small investors are using their small investments as collateral in a loan?

                  • Goodie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    19 hours ago

                    I said investors

                    This would effectively lock out every small investor

                    But sure, now we’re just insulting each other, I’m going to ignore that and try to answer your point.

                    TBH. US tax is weird as fuck, and I don’t know nearly enough about it to have more than a high level discussion on it. In my head, this would simply change when you’re paying taxes, as opposed to how much.

                    But… Nope. Tried to reason about it, can’t think of a nice clean way out. It’s friday afternoon. I’m out.

                    What is your alternative solution to the over all problem?

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        No it wouldn’t. The proposal out there right now has a floor of something like a million dollars. Most of us will never need to worry about that.