890
submitted 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) by Allonzee@lemmy.world to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world

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!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bamfic@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

That's how the rich get richer. They never gamble with their own money. They gamble with other people's money, secured (hah) by their assets.

Yes a minority of us peons who are privileged enough to own property or lots of stocks can play-act like they're rich by taking out reverse mortgages or doing options trading, but it's nothing like what the actual rich can get away with.

[-] sumguyonline@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago

If the rich and the poor are fighting, no one can protect the Republic. The founding fathers intended no income tax and for corporations to pay the entire bill. It's time that became a reality.

[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago

So how does taxing unrealized gains work. If I purchase stock X at a specific price. If the stock goes up and I now am holding 150% of my original value. Let's say it hovers there for 3 more years. After 3 years it tanks and is now worth only 50% of my original purchases. Are people suggesting that I pay taxes on the unrealized gain of 50%, even though I end up selling at loss and have realized negative value. Doesn't that mean I am being taxed on losing money? How does that make sense?

[-] kyle@lemm.ee 5 points 1 hour ago

Frankly I feel like the better option is to just not let people borrow based on stocks at all. Even if you paid in at X price, there's no guarantee it'll still be at X price or greater when the loan comes due, so to speak.

[-] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 hours ago

The moment you use them as a collateral, they should be taxed as money.

You took a 10 billions loan with the actions you have as collateral? You pay taxes on these 10 billions.

Right now, the system is rigged because the richs get to transform their collateral into liquidity while paying 0 taxes on that, and they can even write off the interest on the interest incurred.

[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

I guess that's whats lost in the meme. Just because you "can" use something as collateral doesn't mean you "are" using something as collateral. The language should be more accurate to describe actual use vs hypothetical.

[-] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago

No...see you bought the stock. You don't have enough of a hoard for us to worry about not to mention the value of that stock will be used in the economy more than likely when You retire or need it.

How it will work is you are an early owner or investor and your hoard pile is over $100 million. Now when your hoard pile goes up 7% you have $107 million. We tax you on your wealth over $ 100 million. Let's say 25% tax on that $7 million if you choose to hold onto it. Your wealth tax bill will be $1,750,000 that year (plus minus other factors). You can choose to sell your $7 million and it is currently taxed at 18% for realized tax gains if you held onto the stock for over a year or income % tax rate if short term trade.

What this does is increase the public ownership in companies as there is more stock for everyone and decreases the hoarding of companies by the wealthy. It also makes stock prices more honest so people don't hoard the stock count to inflate prices.

Let's say you own other assets. A house. It is just like property tax if you can't afford the tax bill you don't own the house or....your house isn't worth that much. If you have tons of homes you may have to sell it to the people rather than rent. And if your hoard of assets is in other random collectibles you pay the tax bill to maintain your collection or share the ownership with others.

As for private companies that will be an interesting thing. I would say when your company is worth $100 million you have to divest the ownership to others. But idk. Legalize will figure it out we can also have exceptions for things like house value or other random things

[-] doctordevice@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 hours ago

Why not tax on a regular basis based on the current value, just like we do with houses?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Rakudjo@lemmy.world 23 points 6 hours ago

You're "free" to die in a cardboard box under a freeway

Actually... They made that illegal. You're free to rot in prison for being homeless, though!

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Sitting here, watching every town council around my area pass a homeless ban after that SCOTUS ruling. Even the newspaper suddenly switched and said popular opinion swung 180 degrees in the last six months.

What the fuck does one do at that point? It's obviously manufactured consent. It's blatantly unconstitutional to tell people they can't exist on public land. It's a human rights violation to be stuffed into a shelter that demands you be a better human than people who already have housing in order to get house money. At this point we're just turning the homeless into the new scary minority.

[-] bamfic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

The goal is extermination and genocide. There is nowhere for the homeless to go except into the ground as dead bones, where they won't bother the privileged and rich anymore.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 51 minutes ago* (last edited 50 minutes ago)

I don't know if we're there, but that's definitely one way Automation has been theorized to go.

If it's one homeless guy dieing under the bridge it's a capitalist scarecrow sothat other people work harder.

If it's a hundred homeless guys dieing under bridges the people understand that the problem is not them, but capitalism. That's illegal.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 13 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

What's crazy is to calculate the average US income the census folks of the US government exclude billionaires because it would skew reality so much that people would call bullshit on the average with billionaires in the mix.

so they get to be excluded from the "average wage per family" calculations made and distributed by the government.

[-] Aezora@lemm.ee 3 points 4 hours ago

I think you're conflating average and mean. When it comes to income average is typically median, which does include billionaires but wouldn't skew the data due to their inclusion.

[-] Animated_beans@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Average and mean are the same thing (sum of everything divided by total number of things). Median is the middle number.

[-] howrar@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 hours ago

Colloquially, average is the mean. Mathematically, average can be either mean, median, or mode.

[-] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago

Could I see the numbers?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 16 points 6 hours ago

I wouldn't be a huge fan of taxing unrealized gains if we hadn't been cutting taxes for the rich for 50 years. How else are we ever going to recover from that? These guys COULD have done the right thing and supported sensible taxation policies, but they didn't, so fuck 'em. At this point it's either this or the guillotine.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 5 hours ago

About 70 years.

[-] Goodie@lemmy.world 116 points 10 hours ago

I think a law stating you can't borrow against unrealized gains would be sensible.

You can keep your unrealized gains forever, live of your dividends for all i care, and pay no tax. But realizing them, either through selling or borrowing against, triggers a taxation.

load more comments (39 replies)
[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago

TBH I'm not even considered middle class where I live but I have Unrealized Gains in the form of $VYM and Bitcoin.

I think we should tax loans where stocks are used as Collateral, or set a high bar for Unrealized Gains Tax.

[-] evidences@lemmy.world 13 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The bar being talked about right now is a net worth of 100million usd, do you have a net worth of 100million? If not your bitcoin is safe.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago

Maybe some current proposed legislature has set that bar, but this picture of a tweet does not talk about that.

[-] TastehWaffleZ@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

That picture is referencing Kamala's proposed tax policy where she wants to tax unrealized capital gains on individuals worth 100mill exclusively

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Can't have unrealized gains in a system that doesn't have stocks. Abolish the stock market.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 4 hours ago

You absolutely can have unrealized gains without a stock market. Build a business. Someone wants to buy it from you for $150,000 this year, someone else wants to buy it from you for $250,000 next year, you have unrealized gains of $100,000 from last year to this year.

What we can do is apply an annual wealth tax of 1% of all registered securities, (stocks, bonds, etc) and exempt the first $10 million of each natural person. You don't have to sell your shares; the SEC knows how much you're holding, and will transfer them automatically to IRS liquidators, who will resell them on the open market in small lots, no more than 1% of total traded volume per month.

Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk lose 1% of their empires per year until they are worth less than $10 million.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Someone wants to buy it from you

There's your problem. Business shouldn't be bought and sold either.

What we can do is apply an annual wealth tax of 1% of all registered securities, (stocks, bonds, etc) and exempt the first $10 million of each natural person.

That's not my preferred solution, but I'd take it over nothing.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

They would shit themselves screaming despite how easily they could handle it

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 72 points 10 hours ago

I think the real solution is not to lend on fake money. Tax or no tax, it wasn't taxes that caused the market crash in 2008.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

That doesn't work. It's not enforceable.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Not enforceable as a law, but not bailing out those who do it is a great way to put an end to it.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 48 minutes ago

I'd rather just have it done than give them another thing they can pressure politicians to bail them out of later.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
890 points (96.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

5402 readers
3411 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS