The rich now own a record share of stocks, about 93% of U.S. households' stock market wealth is held by the top 10%
The rich now own a record share of stocks, about 93% of U.S. households' stock market wealth is held by the top 10%
You're viewing a single thread.
tax. every. trade.
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.
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.
I wish I remembered the name of it but there was a really interesting documentary/video about how crazy the rapid trading got, to the point that companies were trying to install systems as close as physically possible to the physical location of the NASDAQ so their requests would have less "travel" time and show up before anyone else.
Absolute insanity...
Yeah. Didn't the feds have to regulate that so that it was an equal playing field for transaction latency?
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.
We’re not asking for 5 minute intervals. Just 1-2 second intervals would stop that automated stuff, or at least diminish it significantly. How about setting it to how long it takes light to go around the world twice +1 second?
How about abolishing the system altogether?
It clearly isn't working for real people.
Thats a great idea.
Hard agree. Make it impossible to dodge with loopholes for the wealthy. Eliminate capital gains and losses Taxing every trade is the only fair way to do it. And people don't need shares of stock to live, so it's not a burden on the poor.
Don't worry, they'll raise a panic alarm about how everyone and their brothers retirement pensions are invested in the market, and so "you'll hurt the poor" will resound, ignoring that a lot of those poor never had a choice to not have their pensions gambled on the fucking market.
I mean, it does have the potential and God forbid the risks aren't communicated.
Low risk retirement plans however should be fine
It still boggles my mind that almost all retirement accounts just blindy add money to the market once or twice every month and it doesn't even move the needle! If we all knew which days our investments and matches (if you're lucky) went in, the non-rich could also print their own money! BRB, going to talk with benefits managers that also skim everything.
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.
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.
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.
Or, require a stock buyer to hold that stock for 365 days before they can sell it. Then tax the sale.
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?
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.
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.
AI and Automation is going to destroy these human labor=value claims of classical Marxism even further. The point is you can't choose not to live in a capitalist society as if you're an ostrich burying your head in the sand. I invest my retirement and portion of my savings in market index funds because keeping it in a bank will lose value over time due to inflation. Keeping the money I have earned through my labor as cash or in a savings account is pretty much guaranteed to lose value as inflation occurs. There is risk in the market, but I'd hardly call that type of investment gambling.
There is a reality we live in, and regardless of political beliefs or opinions on labor and capital, you are in capitalism, your participate in capitalism whether you like it or not, so might as well protect yourself and future by playing the game of capitalism to some degree.
Marx enjoyed the fruits of bourgeois society and participating in fox hunts arranged by Engels. I don't think it's a problem to have some irony in fighting the good fight, while investing in a 401k.
Fuck Milton Friedman. Fuck him right in his little malignant Leprechaun ass. He's the inspiration for the Ferengi, did you know?
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.
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.
Well, I guess you ARE attempting to solve the problem of corrupt lobbyists. Why pay an org to bribe a politician when you can instead just listen to people arguing for why only the ultra-wealthy who can afford the cost of trading should be able to benefit. What next, punish the tobacco industry by giving every school child a piece of nicorette at lunch?
That said, I do actually very much agree with a wealth tax, with caveats. First home (which you are already paying property tax on) is exempt. Same with very specific retirement funds. Probably one car per person because that would also predominantly hurt the lower class, although I would probably make it a fuel tax since that would impact climate change AND de-value the resell value of a car collection.
Because there are solutions and many economists have proposed and studied them. But "We should make stock trading more expensive so only the ultra rich can do it" is not at all a solution.
Why should "first home" be exempt?
Because people actually live in those. And, because of the never ending housing crisis, the "value" of houses goes up pretty rapidly. Which already sucks when you are paying property tax and needing to send the "Hey, my house isn't ACTUALLY worth that much" letter to the county every few years. But add on an overall tax for... not paying rent? And you are going to have a LOT of people priced out of owning their own homes. Which, like most of the previous poster's suggestions, just serve to consolidate "wealth" with the ultra-rich.
Multiple homes? Fuck 'em. Yes, there is the occasional case of someone buying their parents' home or whatever. But mostly you are looking at landlords in that situation.
Maybe. In that case, I think the "first home" should be exempt only if its your only home. If you have more than one, then I see no reason not to tax them. I'm sure it would create a lot of loopholes that would also need to be plugged up.
Ah. Ambiguity fart.
Let me rephrase that to "one home per "household".
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.
Easily addressable by making an annual wealth tax have a threshold so it largely effects the economy's "winners."
That's the point of progressive taxation. The tax code should force the people that benefit the most from society pay the most back into it, as generating great wealth means you utilized a publically educated, pre literate workforce, tore up our roads and infrastructure more, utilized our commons more, etc.
Hey, here's a great idea, multiply the median American annual income by the current average lifespan in years, tie the lowest net worth wealth tax bracket to that number, and go up from there. I'll bet the .1 percent would be really eager to start raising wages then.
At least the ones that don't flee because they were never on their nation's side to begin with.
Don’t most people already pay property tax and tax on their interest income?
Depends on your definition of tax, and your country.
Interest income yes, taxed at the time the gain is realized.
We pay rates, which is a tax on the house value to the council for infrastructure (not technically a tax), and many places have capital gains tax where you pay at the time you sell (i.e when the gain is realised).
maybe you should not take such risks in the market if you cant afford the consequences.
the point here is the entire stock market is not based in reality. its a game that is managed by the very wealthy. we need to remove/reduce the profit motive.
between the hidden markets, self-governance and millisecond level trading, the entire thing is a casino and peoples lives should not be beholden to it. unfortunately those in charge are forcing everyone to get involved.
cries in shitty 401k
So you're saying don't take the risk and buy your own property to live on... just permanently pay rent to someone else?
And you are right, the stock market can come down to milliseconds trading.... but over the long term gains average. You won't become a millionaire overnight but nothing stopping you from buying and holding.
i apologize, i thought we were talking about the stock market
No. Primary residences are always protected from tax agents. Nobody is going to be made homeless by a wealth tax. Take your fearmongering elsewhere.
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
Huh TIL, however it must be a large enough tax bill, several thousand dollars, and a court has to agree they've exhausted every other avenue. Combined with their settlement offers it's got be rare event that happens to the person who just will not work with them. Same with the car you drive to work. So your "nightmare" scenario is still a distant worry, at best, for anyone who isn't a militant libertarian. Personally I'd be more worried about the going to prison part of not cooperating with the IRS.
Are you thinking it's a flat tax?
It would be percentage of the price...
Buy 10 at $100 and pay 10%, that's $10.
Later you sell 10 at $50, that's $5.
If it was $200, pay $20.
Profit or lose, get taxed when you trade.
It incentives long term holding which is better for the company anyways and stabilizes prices.
And pretty much elimate all the day trading bullshit that makes companies focus on constantly improving profit margins no matter what the long term repercussions are.
Companies would want to show sustained long term growth to intice investors who could potentially keep the stock for years.
A trade could be taxed based on the value traded. You trade 200 bucks worth of stock should get hit like you're buying 200 bucks worth of jewelry.
its not the tax mechanisms problem that your market is not based in reality.
dont like it, dont trade. that is the point.
im thinkin flat fee/rate. 10$/per. yeah.
Ah yes the most regressive of taxes. Flat fees.
Deposit $100,000 and pay $10. Deposit $50 every paycheck for a year - pay $260.
Service fee for FreedomTM.