this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
1596 points (96.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

5832 readers
1743 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
 

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!

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago (11 children)

I know the 12 year olds will be upset but this is dumb.

Unrealized gains may never be realized. If they ever are, they may be worth less at that point than the tax you paid. It is like taxing everybody on income at the beginning of the year and then telling them tough luck if they get fired and never get that income.

Also, borrowing in assets does not make you wealthier. How much tax should we charge people when they get a mortgage ( not when they sell, when they first borrow ). I mean, somebody just gave you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why shouldn’t you have to pay tax on that? ( according to the OP at least ).

Anyway, I will stop there. We are not going to get back at the rich by saying a bunch of stupid things. If you don’t like generational wealth, fine. Have an estate tax. If you don’t like windfall wealth, fine. Have a super high progressive tax rate. I have no problem limiting extreme wealth ( it won’t hurt me ). But “tax people I don’t like on things that make no sense” just tells people you cannot think well and are not into math.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago

I think they were realized, in the OP's example, when they were used as collateral for loans, etc?

If you're just sitting on unrealized gains, then yea maybe they don't necessarily need to be taxed. But as soon as you use it as a means to acquiring more money, then they become realized and should be taxed.

The thing about borrowing money might be one of the dumbest things I've read here. Do you honestly believe that people who have access to loans (typically at much lower interest rates than us normies), etc., that it doesn't give them 1000x more opportunity to gain more than any normal person who doesn't have those means?

Do you actually not understand how having money makes it wayyyyyyy easier to make money?

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you can buy shit with it, it has value and can be taxed. There’s no need for playing “Schrödinger’s Gains” where the value is simultaneously worthless because it may/may not be realized yet it’s leveraged into material wealth of every kind. It’s like saying rich people don’t have money because it’s all tied up in assets, but somehow they have multiple homes, a yacht, and private jet trips. That is an incredibly disingenuous argument that completely sidesteps how wealth works.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it's really very simple. That person is being purposely obtuse for whatever reason (either they have a ton of unrealized gains that they themselves have been using as leverage for years, or they believe that they are a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" who will need these lax tax laws in the near future when they are suddenly extremely wealthy somehow).

As soon as you use those "unrealized gains" to make more money, they become realized and should be taxed. Simple.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] thewebroach@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

So with a 401k loan, which is kind of this, you are limited to borrowing against it by like only up to 50% of its face value due to factors such as market volatility. And then all payments made to that loan are with alreaey taxed income, so you aren't securing money in any way that dodges taxation.

Also using shareholdings is no different from using a house or property as collateral... property equity has unrealized value until it is sold too. One might argue you pay property taxes on that equity, but ideally, the company behind the stocks you own pays property taxes for its ownings annually, so that's still happening. So the real problem is large companies dodging taxes due to exploiting broken tax code loopholes.

[–] thewebroach@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Also, i think income tax is double taxation. Businesses are the key market players in an economy so why not orient all taxation around them? Do away with personal income tax and property tax. Keep/increase sales tax, luxury tax, sin tax. And clamp the largest salary in a company to be allowed no more than 20x the average salary in the company to address wage disparities. If the CEO deserves a 1 mil bonus, the average employee deserves at least a 50k bonus. Also, no worker's rate can be paid less than 1/20th the salary than the average employee. The more spread out the dollars are, the better it is for the economy.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (20 children)

Ummm I didn't know they could be used as collateral. I'll have to research that. It doesn't sound right to me for the same reason they definitely should NOT be taxed. How does that even work? You buy stocks and you hold them, then, what the government taxes you every year until there ARE no gains. Or perhaps the stock plummeted and you have a loss, but it's ok, you lost money on the investment AND to the government. Until you sell an investment you haven't made any money on it and it should NOT be taxed. If you have a 401k this would affect you too, not just rich people.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] nexguy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Would they be able to use unrealized losses and just end up paying less in taxes than they do now?

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Yea this is a bad idea. All this will do is force small investors-think people that have made maybe a million dollars in their life and are retiring at 70-to pay taxes they don’t have cash to pay.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›