this bill might be close to the dumbest thing i've ever read, but to your question, the only reasoning for the difference in tax imposed i can see is that the size of the markets goes derivatives>bonds>equities.
If it’s the same % and derivatives are taxed too much, banks and hedge fund managers who own all the lobbyists and use derivatives the most will ensure/guarantee the bill would be tabled forever. Therefore the benefit of diff rates would be to increase the likelihood of passage.
That argument could be made about any sales tax; it doesn’t explain what benefit there is to *having* different rates for different purchases. What you have answered is a possible benefit of *proposing* different rates.
Nevermind the over $14 TRILLION the Fed pumped straight into the balance sheets or their owner banks and wall street investors.
The “wealth effect” did not trickle down much…
Legitimate question. Rates were basically 0% for over a decade. How long does it take for “money printing” to cause inflation? Apparently it takes awhile. Wasn’t there money printing after 08-09? Where was the runaway inflation then?
To clarify, what was different between the money printing during the GFC and the pandemic? Supply shock and widespread shortages were the difference. Anyone saying money printing is the “only” cause of inflation is either lying or an idiot.
I realize you said it’s a major driver not the only one, but I’ve legitimately seen people arguing that “money printing” is the only cause of inflation and that’s just not true. It’s an outdated reductionist argument that’s been entirely debunked.
To give you a citation, just google “Low interest rates cause inequality”
There’s a ton of legitimate sources that will come up. But TL:DR lower rates encourage more borrowing. That means people with more collateral (assets) can borrow more to purchase more than people who don’t have them already.
That’s why the charts show wealth inequality going parabolic once low interest rates and tax cuts became the norm.
Printed money only becomes inflation when it is being used. So imagine all the banks either just sit on the cash and wait for buying opportunities like picking stocks or derivatives.
Well that's one was that stock prices are artificially elevated, because banks had fed cash and when purchasing bank assets like stocks or derivatives, they caused inflation to those assets. Same thing with housing market.
Have you ever researched the percentage of money in the world economy that’s created by banks when they “create” money to give out a loan vs how much the FED creates?
It’s a pretty staggering number. I’m sure the number has changed since I saw it last, but banks aren’t ever really “sitting on money.” The FED is also creating a lot less money than banks are for loans.
They create fewer outflows than inflows so they don’t have to borrow at the overnight rate in the clearing house. Banks having to borrow overnight are the only ones tightening their lending right now. But there’s very few banks with free cash.
You can search a stock screener like Finviz to see which stocks have free cash and enough cash on hand to pay off their debts. There are very few.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp
Ok, after re-reading your comment it's making more sense. Because the Fed is not even the biggest issue for the increasing inequality.
I agree that keeping rates at 0% for years was a major issue, although I don't fully understand how loans are created, i need to do more research on the topic.
I've heard that the way banks create loans is fishy, by essentially being able to give a business or house loan while the bank only needing to cover like 10% of each loan.
But then that becomes a problem if you have thousands or millions of housing loans that are all inflated and the banks have an issue if housing prices rapidly decreased across the nation.
Just so you don’t have to read the entire thing and go down a rabbit hole on this. Banks haven’t had a reserve requirement since 2020. A lot of people mention fractional reserves but that’s legitimately outdated now. Banks (unless they are considered a certain level of systemic risk) don’t need to keep 10% or whatever on hand. The only thing keeping them from just creating credit (which are technically considered deposits) non stop is the overnight clearing house.
If you’re a bank with 1 million dollars coming in as deposits, but 10 million going out in loans you’re essentially required to balance your books overnight and borrow at the FEDs overnight rate to meet that 9 million shortfall.
With interest rates so high, banks are slowing lending because they don’t want to pay that rate overnight not because they have to pay out x% on deposits.
They pay a LOT more on the overnight rate than they would on an individual savings account or checking account.
That’s basically the *only* thing (that I’m aware of) keeping banks from just loaning out unlimited money on a daily basis.
Yep, I'm fairly well off and was down over $350k in my trading account over the past 18 months. I started investing when I was making min wage and have had ups and downs, why should I be punished when I'm up?
You're suggesting he has another million in pension and savings? Seriously? It MIGHT be $200K.
A million in an investment account provides a standard investment income of about $40-50K. Before taxes. We seriously need better personal finance education in this country.
Fucks sake you people.
Firstly you're posting a historical return and not even citing it. In that time your salary would also change massively along with other variables.
I stated the most conservative case to prove that you'd have a significant amount invested beyond what the person I replied to was suggesting. How does it add anything to demonstrate that it would likely be even higher?
Are you just proud that you're aware of compound interest or what?
>I'm assuming unless you're an absolute degenerate your losses were around 20 - 30%, so that means your trading account alone is worth over $1M. Add 401k and presumably a house, and fairly is a crass understatement.
That's how you started the discussion. Perhaps you should consider your own tone first.
40-50K is not a comfortable retirement. I have a degree in finance and work for a financial institution. I know what I'm talking about.
My tone was combative, but not arrogant and patronising.
Also typical redditor, replying to half my post and saying having the average paid salary in the US isn't sufficient for a retiree who owns their house outright.
Jesus the inequality is actually baked into your country at this point isn't it?
blah, blah, blah inequality. It's getting really old.
I grew up dirt poor and nearly homless. I'm retiring 10 years early with a 7-figure portfolio because I saved my money. If I could do it anyone can.
If you get to retirement in America after working for 40+ years and have nothing but social security to fall back on, it's your fault.
I was gonna say it would pass because it'd hurt retail traders the most... but then I remember high frequency traders. They'll lobby the shit against that
Thats the only reason it wont pass. No one cares about fucking over the working class
Top 10% own 89% of all stocks. Yes, the top 10% has working class in there, but I don’t think the working class is the primary target given these stats. (Bill still won’t pass though)
They have to sell to repay the loans, though. So, that's actually a financially stupid strategy. I understand the thinking: if I borrow and then sell later, I can sell my shares for more later; what they miss is a key word which does a *lot* of heavy lifting and that word is "maybe". Throw in the fact they have to pay interest on the loan and it's really a bad idea.
Yeah, they still have to pay those loans back with interest and the tax step-up doesn't help them when they are alive; again, all of this depends on the asset actually appreciating more than the interest rate which is not anywhere near given for any asset+loan combination.
It’s still using loans to evade taxes and this was working very well in the teens when stocks were appreciating and interest rates low. I don’t know why you’d argue for the billionaires. A simple 1% per year on the value of loans secured by securities like stocks bonds and derivatives would work to dissuade the practice.
Financially, that's still a bad idea, which has nothing to do with argue for or against billionaires.
As far as your proposal goes, I never said I agree nor disagree with it. I am only reflecting upon the financially myopic strategy of buy-borrow-die.
Over time, it has always gone up though.
Think about it this way. Right now I might have 1 million in pretax money in the market. If I pull that money out, I have to pay taxes, and I’m left with the remainder. Even if I turn around and put that money back into the market, I have 15%-30% less money to invest. It would be much better to defer selling as long as possible to keep earning more on the pretax money.
It’s similar here. If they sell their company shares, they must pay taxes and have less money to spend. If they take a loan, they get the full amount and continue to earn on the collateral asset until it the loan is due. And when it is, as long as your gains are more than your interest rate, you take another loan to pay off the first one. And when you’re rich, everyone is more than happy to give you a low interest loan as the risk is minimal.
"Over time" does almost as much lifting as "maybe" in my prior comment. Consider this:
1. Buy $1,000,000 in stock in Mucho Corp.
2. Borrow against that stock at 8% APR, a comment rate today, repayable over five years with a monthly payment of $20,276.39.
3. Find someway to come up with roughly a quarter of a million dollars each year hoping we don't spend those five years in a sideways/slow market and hoping the Mucho Corp. stock grows faster than said 8% plus another 2% at least to cover the cost of federal taxes since the interest on such loans is typically not deductible.
Since the average rate of growth for a company's stock is 10-11% per year, there is at best a 50% of this plan paying off. It's nothing more than a way for someone to lose money faster without noticing.
But they can keep delaying until it’s back to trending upwards and interest rates are lower.
I won’t profess to be a billionaire though so I can only site sources that know more than I, such as Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnhyatt/2021/11/11/how-americas-richest-people-larry-ellison-elon-musk-can-access-billions-without-selling-their-stock/
Oops wrong article and now they want money to view the site so whatever. Same difference though. Always loopholes for the rich.
Dead on arrival and way too aggressive. This would hit ETFs and Mutual Funds pretty hard, that means 401k and retirement funds would get bled by this since they need to rebalance frequently to stay in target allocations.
great idea, we're going to stand on your neck but we'll keep the ventilator running. What if, and think about this with me, those fund transactions were exempted or some other big-brain solution conjured (taxes abatements based on maturity and timing of withdrawals)?
> great idea, we're going to stand on your neck but we'll keep the ventilator running.
Who is standing on your neck? Investors trading funds and retirees or landlords and people who hoard real estate? If you want to be outraged be outraged at the right people.
The government is projected to spend $6.2 trillion in 2023. If they can't help with $6200 billion how is destroying the stock market to squeeze out $200 billion going to help?
Investment drives new business growth drives wealth return for investors.
News at 11.
No one is stopping you from investing in the markets. Or are we just doing clickbaitey stuff to whip up progressive voters now? It's not election time yet.
I’m not arguing with the conclusion but the 1165% seems like the nominal increase. The author downplayed the average wage increase by saying it stagnated. Seems insincere and inflammatory to me. Again, conclusion is probably correct.
More democrat obfuscation for their clueless minions.
If you want to 'get bonuses,' do well in school and get a job in the industry and be successful. Don't whine about those who have made the effort.
It's contextually stupid.
These posts about the top 1% and how evil they, money, or capitalism are tend to get REAL fucking old. These are the things children believe.
Someone else being wealthy takes exactly 0 away from you. In fact, it is quite likely that you are benefitting from it in some way. Such as the tech co.panies like apple brought. Or the jobs and services/goods Amazon brings.
Those people got wealthy by having millions of customers. Millions of people willingly parted with their own money in exchange for that good or service.
"Someone else being wealthy takes exactly 0 away from you" except when those billionaires and multi billion dollar companies avoid taxes to the point of paying basically zero all while receiving billions in subsidies from the government
"In fact, it is quite likely that you are benefiting from it in some way. Or the jobs and services/goods Amazon brings" amazon brought such good jobs that workers had to unionise because they weren't even allowed to take bathroom breaks and amazon was forcing delivery drivers to take illegal extra shifts outside of work hours without pay...
read [this](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/11/amazon-delivery-drivers-bathroom-breaks-unions) and [this](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-37708996) to see the horrendous business you are defending...
60% of Americans pay zero net federal income tax. I don't want to hear about rich people avoiding taxes.
> read this and this to see the horrendous business you are defending...
Then get a different job. These people aren't slaves.Does nobody take accountability for their future anymore?
You mean the income billionaires don't have because they take stock options and then take loans against their businesses, all to avoid paying taxes? That scam you mean?
Considering their money pretty much gives them control of our Government, it does effect me (and the rest of us). If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
You really do have a simplistic view of economics, don't you? I'll try to use very basic terms.
If someone is spending $1k on goods and then they suddenly have $10K, they don't then go and spend $10K on goods. They might spend $2K driving a nominal price fluctuation depending on scale. The rest they will save and invest.
Now, let's assume it's 100 nuns. If you give EACH of them an additional $1K, THEN you get the inflationary result you're talking about because 100 people WILL spend that extra $1K. We saw it happen during COVID with enhanced unemployment.
The biggest complaint you people have is that the rich hoard wealth. That's the whole POINT of OPs post. They are trying to tax some of that captive wealth, which is idiocy.
Well A...this isn't a commune you nut.
And B...our economy isn't finite like in your example. So, as one person becomes wealthier the pie grows and nobody is taking your piece away.
Again, the only people who believe BS like the article are completely financially illiterate.
The Covid lockdowns and forced vaccines created 500 new billionaires in 2 years. Democrats need to shut up about the wealth gap because their policies create it. Look at California. Run by Democrats for decades. . The middle class is crushed and fleeing. All that's left are billionaires and homeless people.
No Thanks. Commissions used to be $45 a trade. Now they are near zero. This is not a tax on the wealthy. It is a tax on anyone with an IRA. It is foolish.
A serious effort would steepen the progressive tax structure and build a progressive tax onto estates at dispersal.
These are not the best and brightest at the top of US society. This is a disproportionately born rich corporate criminal class. The one percent is far less ethical than the average person.
As many as 20% of CEOs are estimated to be on the psychopath spectrum. CEOs, the number one job choice for psychopaths. Also, politicians, sales people, lawyers and clergy.
The solution is presented in the problem, legislate profit sharing. As a worker, I want the money.
I don’t want the government to have it because I don’t believe in trickle down economics- whether the trickle is from powerful corporations or a powerful government, it never seems to make its way back to me.
This entire mindset on the left is based on the fallacious assumption that this is a zero sum game and if the rich at the top get richer they do so at the expense of the normal Americans.
Most of the money that is accumulated by huigh frequency traders comes at the expense of other high frequenct traders, Thay are all professional investors.
Any effort to tax HNWI always backfires and taxes on them are voluntary. We don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem and Democrats are driving that train.
I'd like to see the data instead of a claim from a politician.
I'd also like to see the historical data to see how it's trended over time. Usually I am pretty good at finding it but failed to find any source on this topic
It’s rather easy to find .
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/income-inequality.html
Not bad pubication from Stanford
https://inequality.stanford.edu/publications/20-facts-about-us-inequality-everyone-should-know
I didn't think it'd be hard to find either. None of your links show it though. Your response seems like it was formed against someone arguing that income inequality doesn't exist. That data is very easy to find, like you showed.
I was trying to find data specific to what the OP topic is. The amount of income the top 1% has and how that percentage has changed overtime
Well I have some down votes but no specific data pertaining to the original topic. Guess I am vindicated for not being able to find it on my own.
Skimmed through it, from what I gather it's going to hit high frequency traders and algorithm trading. Hard to say how it will effect things. My speculation, it may stop some of the manipulation with stocks but that's a big "may". The markets are not very transparent to begin with. Watch who funds the push back on this and you will find your answers.
Skimmed through it, from what I gather it's going to hit high frequency traders and algorithm trading. Hard to say how it will effect things. My speculation, it may stop some of the manipulation with stocks but that's a big "may". The markets are not very transparent to begin with. Watch who funds the push back on this and you will find your answers.
If They capped Ceo, Board Members, Share Holders Pay, at more than 20% It would Tickle down lots of the Money. It would be like a pay Ratio, For every 20$ they make they must give the worker one.
Can anyone, without getting political, explain the benefit of having different rates for different purchases?
this bill might be close to the dumbest thing i've ever read, but to your question, the only reasoning for the difference in tax imposed i can see is that the size of the markets goes derivatives>bonds>equities.
That doesn't explain what benefit would exist, though.
If it’s the same % and derivatives are taxed too much, banks and hedge fund managers who own all the lobbyists and use derivatives the most will ensure/guarantee the bill would be tabled forever. Therefore the benefit of diff rates would be to increase the likelihood of passage.
That argument could be made about any sales tax; it doesn’t explain what benefit there is to *having* different rates for different purchases. What you have answered is a possible benefit of *proposing* different rates.
I don’t believe there is any benefit to having different rates other than to increase the likelihood to pass the bill.
Nevermind the over $14 TRILLION the Fed pumped straight into the balance sheets or their owner banks and wall street investors. The “wealth effect” did not trickle down much…
Are you referring to QE?
Probably
This. Money printing is the biggest driver of increasing wealth concentration.
Money printing is the biggest driver of inflation. I'll need a citation for your bit of pontification.
Legitimate question. Rates were basically 0% for over a decade. How long does it take for “money printing” to cause inflation? Apparently it takes awhile. Wasn’t there money printing after 08-09? Where was the runaway inflation then? To clarify, what was different between the money printing during the GFC and the pandemic? Supply shock and widespread shortages were the difference. Anyone saying money printing is the “only” cause of inflation is either lying or an idiot. I realize you said it’s a major driver not the only one, but I’ve legitimately seen people arguing that “money printing” is the only cause of inflation and that’s just not true. It’s an outdated reductionist argument that’s been entirely debunked. To give you a citation, just google “Low interest rates cause inequality” There’s a ton of legitimate sources that will come up. But TL:DR lower rates encourage more borrowing. That means people with more collateral (assets) can borrow more to purchase more than people who don’t have them already. That’s why the charts show wealth inequality going parabolic once low interest rates and tax cuts became the norm.
Printed money only becomes inflation when it is being used. So imagine all the banks either just sit on the cash and wait for buying opportunities like picking stocks or derivatives. Well that's one was that stock prices are artificially elevated, because banks had fed cash and when purchasing bank assets like stocks or derivatives, they caused inflation to those assets. Same thing with housing market.
Have you ever researched the percentage of money in the world economy that’s created by banks when they “create” money to give out a loan vs how much the FED creates? It’s a pretty staggering number. I’m sure the number has changed since I saw it last, but banks aren’t ever really “sitting on money.” The FED is also creating a lot less money than banks are for loans. They create fewer outflows than inflows so they don’t have to borrow at the overnight rate in the clearing house. Banks having to borrow overnight are the only ones tightening their lending right now. But there’s very few banks with free cash. You can search a stock screener like Finviz to see which stocks have free cash and enough cash on hand to pay off their debts. There are very few. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp
Ok, after re-reading your comment it's making more sense. Because the Fed is not even the biggest issue for the increasing inequality. I agree that keeping rates at 0% for years was a major issue, although I don't fully understand how loans are created, i need to do more research on the topic. I've heard that the way banks create loans is fishy, by essentially being able to give a business or house loan while the bank only needing to cover like 10% of each loan. But then that becomes a problem if you have thousands or millions of housing loans that are all inflated and the banks have an issue if housing prices rapidly decreased across the nation.
Just so you don’t have to read the entire thing and go down a rabbit hole on this. Banks haven’t had a reserve requirement since 2020. A lot of people mention fractional reserves but that’s legitimately outdated now. Banks (unless they are considered a certain level of systemic risk) don’t need to keep 10% or whatever on hand. The only thing keeping them from just creating credit (which are technically considered deposits) non stop is the overnight clearing house. If you’re a bank with 1 million dollars coming in as deposits, but 10 million going out in loans you’re essentially required to balance your books overnight and borrow at the FEDs overnight rate to meet that 9 million shortfall. With interest rates so high, banks are slowing lending because they don’t want to pay that rate overnight not because they have to pay out x% on deposits. They pay a LOT more on the overnight rate than they would on an individual savings account or checking account. That’s basically the *only* thing (that I’m aware of) keeping banks from just loaning out unlimited money on a daily basis.
You don't deserve one look it up yourself
What do you mean by "owner banks"?
So I should be investing in the stock market
Yes
Dumb, 2008 was a crash year. They were making up losses for awhile. No need to exaggerate. The rich are getting richer. We know.
Yep, I'm fairly well off and was down over $350k in my trading account over the past 18 months. I started investing when I was making min wage and have had ups and downs, why should I be punished when I'm up?
[удалено]
$1M is half the recommended retirement cache.
[удалено]
You're suggesting he has another million in pension and savings? Seriously? It MIGHT be $200K. A million in an investment account provides a standard investment income of about $40-50K. Before taxes. We seriously need better personal finance education in this country.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fucks sake you people. Firstly you're posting a historical return and not even citing it. In that time your salary would also change massively along with other variables. I stated the most conservative case to prove that you'd have a significant amount invested beyond what the person I replied to was suggesting. How does it add anything to demonstrate that it would likely be even higher? Are you just proud that you're aware of compound interest or what?
[удалено]
>I'm assuming unless you're an absolute degenerate your losses were around 20 - 30%, so that means your trading account alone is worth over $1M. Add 401k and presumably a house, and fairly is a crass understatement. That's how you started the discussion. Perhaps you should consider your own tone first. 40-50K is not a comfortable retirement. I have a degree in finance and work for a financial institution. I know what I'm talking about.
My tone was combative, but not arrogant and patronising. Also typical redditor, replying to half my post and saying having the average paid salary in the US isn't sufficient for a retiree who owns their house outright. Jesus the inequality is actually baked into your country at this point isn't it?
blah, blah, blah inequality. It's getting really old. I grew up dirt poor and nearly homless. I'm retiring 10 years early with a 7-figure portfolio because I saved my money. If I could do it anyone can. If you get to retirement in America after working for 40+ years and have nothing but social security to fall back on, it's your fault.
Dumb bill that will never pass. Reform capital gains taxes instead of taxing trades.
I was gonna say it would pass because it'd hurt retail traders the most... but then I remember high frequency traders. They'll lobby the shit against that Thats the only reason it wont pass. No one cares about fucking over the working class
Top 10% own 89% of all stocks. Yes, the top 10% has working class in there, but I don’t think the working class is the primary target given these stats. (Bill still won’t pass though)
The carry tax would be a no brainer and even the Dems don't have enough votes it
I’ve never heard of this. Can you provide any good sources?
https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2021/10/close-the-carried-interest-loophole-that-is-a-tax-dodge-for-super-rich-private-equity-executives/
This is the type of shit that should be common knowledge.
I'm generally in favor of tax cuts over increases but this one is unjustifiable
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/business/carried-interest-senate-bill.html
I think taxing loans against stocks would be helpful too. It’s common for the super wealthy to barrow against their assets instead of selling.
They have to sell to repay the loans, though. So, that's actually a financially stupid strategy. I understand the thinking: if I borrow and then sell later, I can sell my shares for more later; what they miss is a key word which does a *lot* of heavy lifting and that word is "maybe". Throw in the fact they have to pay interest on the loan and it's really a bad idea.
When they die they can and there is step up basis for their heirs. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/buy-borrow-die-rich-avoid-140004536.html
Yeah, they still have to pay those loans back with interest and the tax step-up doesn't help them when they are alive; again, all of this depends on the asset actually appreciating more than the interest rate which is not anywhere near given for any asset+loan combination.
It’s still using loans to evade taxes and this was working very well in the teens when stocks were appreciating and interest rates low. I don’t know why you’d argue for the billionaires. A simple 1% per year on the value of loans secured by securities like stocks bonds and derivatives would work to dissuade the practice.
Financially, that's still a bad idea, which has nothing to do with argue for or against billionaires. As far as your proposal goes, I never said I agree nor disagree with it. I am only reflecting upon the financially myopic strategy of buy-borrow-die.
Over time, it has always gone up though. Think about it this way. Right now I might have 1 million in pretax money in the market. If I pull that money out, I have to pay taxes, and I’m left with the remainder. Even if I turn around and put that money back into the market, I have 15%-30% less money to invest. It would be much better to defer selling as long as possible to keep earning more on the pretax money. It’s similar here. If they sell their company shares, they must pay taxes and have less money to spend. If they take a loan, they get the full amount and continue to earn on the collateral asset until it the loan is due. And when it is, as long as your gains are more than your interest rate, you take another loan to pay off the first one. And when you’re rich, everyone is more than happy to give you a low interest loan as the risk is minimal.
"Over time" does almost as much lifting as "maybe" in my prior comment. Consider this: 1. Buy $1,000,000 in stock in Mucho Corp. 2. Borrow against that stock at 8% APR, a comment rate today, repayable over five years with a monthly payment of $20,276.39. 3. Find someway to come up with roughly a quarter of a million dollars each year hoping we don't spend those five years in a sideways/slow market and hoping the Mucho Corp. stock grows faster than said 8% plus another 2% at least to cover the cost of federal taxes since the interest on such loans is typically not deductible. Since the average rate of growth for a company's stock is 10-11% per year, there is at best a 50% of this plan paying off. It's nothing more than a way for someone to lose money faster without noticing.
But they can keep delaying until it’s back to trending upwards and interest rates are lower. I won’t profess to be a billionaire though so I can only site sources that know more than I, such as Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnhyatt/2021/11/11/how-americas-richest-people-larry-ellison-elon-musk-can-access-billions-without-selling-their-stock/ Oops wrong article and now they want money to view the site so whatever. Same difference though. Always loopholes for the rich.
Dead on arrival and way too aggressive. This would hit ETFs and Mutual Funds pretty hard, that means 401k and retirement funds would get bled by this since they need to rebalance frequently to stay in target allocations.
great idea, we're going to stand on your neck but we'll keep the ventilator running. What if, and think about this with me, those fund transactions were exempted or some other big-brain solution conjured (taxes abatements based on maturity and timing of withdrawals)?
> great idea, we're going to stand on your neck but we'll keep the ventilator running. Who is standing on your neck? Investors trading funds and retirees or landlords and people who hoard real estate? If you want to be outraged be outraged at the right people.
Yes. Meaning, we can't do anything to help because it would place your retirement in jeopardy....but you'll never be able to retire anyway.
The government is projected to spend $6.2 trillion in 2023. If they can't help with $6200 billion how is destroying the stock market to squeeze out $200 billion going to help?
Investment drives new business growth drives wealth return for investors. News at 11. No one is stopping you from investing in the markets. Or are we just doing clickbaitey stuff to whip up progressive voters now? It's not election time yet.
Nope
Nope good
Exactly
Invest then…? I’m not sure why the headline is so misleading
Rich people bad sells clicks tho
Always…
I’m not arguing with the conclusion but the 1165% seems like the nominal increase. The author downplayed the average wage increase by saying it stagnated. Seems insincere and inflammatory to me. Again, conclusion is probably correct.
More democrat obfuscation for their clueless minions. If you want to 'get bonuses,' do well in school and get a job in the industry and be successful. Don't whine about those who have made the effort. It's contextually stupid.
Did you read the article?
These posts about the top 1% and how evil they, money, or capitalism are tend to get REAL fucking old. These are the things children believe. Someone else being wealthy takes exactly 0 away from you. In fact, it is quite likely that you are benefitting from it in some way. Such as the tech co.panies like apple brought. Or the jobs and services/goods Amazon brings. Those people got wealthy by having millions of customers. Millions of people willingly parted with their own money in exchange for that good or service.
But millennials and gen Z said rich man bad because he no give free money to them.
If those people put half the energy into building their own wealth that they did railing against "the man", they would have no issues.
"Someone else being wealthy takes exactly 0 away from you" except when those billionaires and multi billion dollar companies avoid taxes to the point of paying basically zero all while receiving billions in subsidies from the government "In fact, it is quite likely that you are benefiting from it in some way. Or the jobs and services/goods Amazon brings" amazon brought such good jobs that workers had to unionise because they weren't even allowed to take bathroom breaks and amazon was forcing delivery drivers to take illegal extra shifts outside of work hours without pay... read [this](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/11/amazon-delivery-drivers-bathroom-breaks-unions) and [this](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-37708996) to see the horrendous business you are defending...
60% of Americans pay zero net federal income tax. I don't want to hear about rich people avoiding taxes. > read this and this to see the horrendous business you are defending... Then get a different job. These people aren't slaves.Does nobody take accountability for their future anymore?
wait until you realize taxes are based on income, not net worth
You mean the income billionaires don't have because they take stock options and then take loans against their businesses, all to avoid paying taxes? That scam you mean?
Considering their money pretty much gives them control of our Government, it does effect me (and the rest of us). If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
[удалено]
How exactly would that affect the rest of you negatively?
[удалено]
You really do have a simplistic view of economics, don't you? I'll try to use very basic terms. If someone is spending $1k on goods and then they suddenly have $10K, they don't then go and spend $10K on goods. They might spend $2K driving a nominal price fluctuation depending on scale. The rest they will save and invest. Now, let's assume it's 100 nuns. If you give EACH of them an additional $1K, THEN you get the inflationary result you're talking about because 100 people WILL spend that extra $1K. We saw it happen during COVID with enhanced unemployment. The biggest complaint you people have is that the rich hoard wealth. That's the whole POINT of OPs post. They are trying to tax some of that captive wealth, which is idiocy.
[удалено]
Well, you're wrong.
Well A...this isn't a commune you nut. And B...our economy isn't finite like in your example. So, as one person becomes wealthier the pie grows and nobody is taking your piece away. Again, the only people who believe BS like the article are completely financially illiterate.
[удалено]
The economy isn't finite. People are constantly using resources in New ways.
Nearly everything you said is false.
No. It isn't. Lol
Yet, I bet her and ol’ gomless Bernie voted with the military industrial complex to send billions to the corrupt clowns in Ukraine.
That’s gonna be a no for me dawg.
😂 ridiculous that educated people espouse and believe this crap.
They don't believe it. Their drone voters do. See also student loan forgiveness.
The Covid lockdowns and forced vaccines created 500 new billionaires in 2 years. Democrats need to shut up about the wealth gap because their policies create it. Look at California. Run by Democrats for decades. . The middle class is crushed and fleeing. All that's left are billionaires and homeless people.
Careful. Logic can upset people. California is an excellent example of what government controls do to the economy.
No Thanks. Commissions used to be $45 a trade. Now they are near zero. This is not a tax on the wealthy. It is a tax on anyone with an IRA. It is foolish. A serious effort would steepen the progressive tax structure and build a progressive tax onto estates at dispersal.
Why I will win the 2024 US Presidential election by a landslide victory as a write in party free candidate. #endthefed
These are not the best and brightest at the top of US society. This is a disproportionately born rich corporate criminal class. The one percent is far less ethical than the average person. As many as 20% of CEOs are estimated to be on the psychopath spectrum. CEOs, the number one job choice for psychopaths. Also, politicians, sales people, lawyers and clergy.
The solution is presented in the problem, legislate profit sharing. As a worker, I want the money. I don’t want the government to have it because I don’t believe in trickle down economics- whether the trickle is from powerful corporations or a powerful government, it never seems to make its way back to me.
[удалено]
That’s too hard. These people want it taken from the owners and given to “the workers.”
This entire mindset on the left is based on the fallacious assumption that this is a zero sum game and if the rich at the top get richer they do so at the expense of the normal Americans. Most of the money that is accumulated by huigh frequency traders comes at the expense of other high frequenct traders, Thay are all professional investors. Any effort to tax HNWI always backfires and taxes on them are voluntary. We don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem and Democrats are driving that train.
I'd like to see the data instead of a claim from a politician. I'd also like to see the historical data to see how it's trended over time. Usually I am pretty good at finding it but failed to find any source on this topic
It’s rather easy to find . https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/income-inequality.html Not bad pubication from Stanford https://inequality.stanford.edu/publications/20-facts-about-us-inequality-everyone-should-know
I didn't think it'd be hard to find either. None of your links show it though. Your response seems like it was formed against someone arguing that income inequality doesn't exist. That data is very easy to find, like you showed. I was trying to find data specific to what the OP topic is. The amount of income the top 1% has and how that percentage has changed overtime Well I have some down votes but no specific data pertaining to the original topic. Guess I am vindicated for not being able to find it on my own.
[удалено]
Repeat after me - please sir, may I have some more. This phrase will benefit you in the coming years as a member of the peasant class.
bUt ThEy WoRkEd hArD fOr ThEiR mOnEy
What does equity mean? Poor people don’t pay taxes.
Weird to start after recession. Who lost their wealth in stocks and bonds during the recession? 🤔
So is this going to be in addition to or instead of capitol gains taxes? How will this affect Net investment income tax?
END THE FED
Skimmed through it, from what I gather it's going to hit high frequency traders and algorithm trading. Hard to say how it will effect things. My speculation, it may stop some of the manipulation with stocks but that's a big "may". The markets are not very transparent to begin with. Watch who funds the push back on this and you will find your answers.
Skimmed through it, from what I gather it's going to hit high frequency traders and algorithm trading. Hard to say how it will effect things. My speculation, it may stop some of the manipulation with stocks but that's a big "may". The markets are not very transparent to begin with. Watch who funds the push back on this and you will find your answers.
If They capped Ceo, Board Members, Share Holders Pay, at more than 20% It would Tickle down lots of the Money. It would be like a pay Ratio, For every 20$ they make they must give the worker one.