this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
566 points (97.6% liked)

News

23378 readers
2375 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Don’t most people already pay property tax and tax on their interest income?

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago

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).

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No. Primary residences are always protected from tax agents. Nobody is going to be made homeless by a wealth tax. Take your fearmongering elsewhere.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Why should "first home" be exempt?

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago

Ah. Ambiguity fart.

Let me rephrase that to "one home per "household".