• DreamButt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most tax programs which apply to capital gains apply to the sell and exchange of the stock. Dividends are also taxed (at least here in the states). So yes, you get taxed no matter what you do unless it’s a net loss

          • ScrotusMaximus@lemmy.ninja
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s why the quiet part is to borrow against the assets in perpetuity. No tax on money you take out in loans using your investments as collateral! This is effectively a home equity loan for the rich. Now, you can’t keep paying interest on your growing loans forever. Why, ScrotusMaximus, that would be unsustainable! Not to mention that baby faced intern fresh out of grad school with 300k of student loans to be repaid keeps pointing out your interest only loan to his supervisor and posting on Work Reform.

            So move onto step two! You and your other insider buddies are going to do a little pump and dump action. For this phase of the plan we are going to crash the market, and write off the impaired value of our investments and debt. Scrotus, that sounds complicated, you might say. Sure, maybe for a peasant such as yourself, it might be. All we have to do is make our investments worth less on paper! A little bad press, some failed deliveries, an enshittified platform, a war breaks out on the wrong people. Nothing is actually changing hands. That would be silly. This has the added intentional bit of killing off the bank or investors we owe money to, figuratively of course. We’re not actually killing anyone, mind you. That would be a crime and as we all know crime is only for the poors.

            A year or two passes. We are on our yacht living off the loan money. We are in the final phase of our plan: no one bought the snake oil, the enshittified apps aren’t making ad revenue and that war sure hurt that new market. Our investments are worthless and we can’t borrow anymore money to pay for the yacht diesel or scantily clad deck boys. Gosh darn it, Scrotus, now what?

            It just so happens the bank that loaned us money had to be bought out by JPAmerica Bank with taxpayer bailout money thanks to the votes from our friends 😉 in government, and good news! They’re willing to work with us to refinance the loans because an investor bought our shitty debt for pennies on the dollar! What a sucker, amirite?

            No tax on loans! The poor hate this one trick

            This message brought to you under an Apache MIT BSD license to distribute.

            Edit: An instead of a

            • DreamButt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              How do you feel about limiting loans against assets and total wealth based taxes?

              In general I try to avoid talking about these things because people get touchy and act like the situation is hopeless. Captial Gains taxes does have an affect and it does improve the situation. And obviously what you brought up are clear concerns with how it is often setup today. So I’m interested in how we could continue to make things better in that regard

              • Serinus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not really in favor of a wealth tax. Maybe, if we really need to claw back our mistakes, but I think there are better approaches.

                A tax on loans based on wealth seems great though. If you have the wealth, why are you borrowing? What are the legitimate uses of secured loans?

                Capital gains taxes should be higher than payroll taxes. Always and forever.

                Marginal tax rates exist for a reason, and it’s absurd that we stop progressive taxation after $700k. The difference between making $800k/year and making $15m/year is ridiculous. At $800k/year you at least want to make the business last for a decade. After you cash out for $15m in a year, are you really accountable to anyone?

              • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m just spitballing here, but maybe the solution is just, like, you know, tax the rich…?

                I mean, really tax them, you know, all in, no bars, just get in there, and tax the hell right out of them.

                Whad’ya say? Think it might work?

                • DreamButt@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes that’s why I said “total wealth based taxes.” If you want to make a meaningful contribution to the conversation maybe actually read what other people are talking about

      • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They pay 42% of INCOME taxes, which are only 40% of the annual federal tax receipts. Which means their income tax only amounts to about 17% of the overall tax receipts. Their FICA contributions are capped and they pay no FICA on anything over about $140,000. FICA tax accounts for 25% of overall federal tax receipts. The majority of remaining tax receipts are consumption taxes and property taxes, both of which are regressive and impact lower income citizens more.

        https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/us-tax-revenue-by-tax-type-2020/

        https://www.bench.co/blog/tax-tips/fica-tax

        https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

        • PsychedSy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Fair correction. So, you’re saying they do pay taxes?

          Edit: do you consider corporate taxes part of the 1%, or nah?

            • PsychedSy
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not the one that shifted them. What was the comment I first replied to? I’ll wait.

              • steakmeout@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The top 1% pays 42% of taxes.

                Your statement implies that the top 1% pay 42% of all taxes, which is untrue. When called out on your lie of omission you cried like a bitch and tried to shift the goalposts to seem like you didn’t lie.

                • PsychedSy
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The comment I replied to said the rich don’t pay taxes. What was important is that the rich pay a lot of taxes. I forgot a word and when it was pointed out I told them it was a fair correction.

                  Their analysis counted all federal receipts. 13% of federal tax receipts were corporate taxes. So they implied that the rich pay less than they do of all federal receipts and I was curious if they would respond to me asking.

                  No goalpost shift. The point was the rich pay taxes. They reminded me I forgot a word and I accepted the correction like an adult.

                  You people are fucking wild.

  • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    I left a private sector job where I did increasingly evil things for a good amount of money for a public works job where I’m doing something beneficial to society. I have to work a shit-ton of OT to make the same money but the OT is there for the working and I ultimately maybe work a hair more than I used to in my salary position.

  • Rory Butler Music@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have a public service job.

    Can’t afford to live, get shouted at by callers irrelevant to my role each day just cos I am at a phone, can’t work from home despite the whole organisation doing so, higher paid people throw their workload at me cos they don’t want to do it.

    Feels no different from when i was in the private sector really.

    • atetulo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Can’t afford to live

      At what quality of life?

      I find it hard to believe you have a public service job that can’t pay for your peanut butter sandwiches and vegetables to stay alive.

      • kofe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol damn, God forbid someone want more out of life than scraping by getting basic needs barely met. I’ve been looking around while in school, and plenty of jobs are still paying $15-19/hr. That is barely enough to get by, depending where you live and rent may not even be enough, let alone take a vacation once a year or even think of raising a family.

        • atetulo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What do you mean? He used the word ‘need’ and now you’re changing it to ‘wants.’

          Why are you conflating needs with wants?

          • kofe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s both. Humans need breaks, vacations, etc. I may want to take a vacation to South America but would settle for somewhere North, though.

            • atetulo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Humans need breaks, vacations, etc.

              Woah woah woah. Breaks and vacations are very different things.

              It’s funny watching you people conflate needs and wants just like breaks and vacations, lol.

              You really need to brush up on your vocabulary!

              • kofe@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Please do explain the difference, then, between why breaks are necessary but vacations shouldn’t be? You do realize study after study shows that 24-30 hour work weeks provide the most productivity? That family leave, healthcare, paid time off etc is associated with the happiest citizens? Is increased well-being not necessary in your worldview?

                • atetulo@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  between why breaks are necessary but vacations shouldn’t be?

                  One is literally necessary for survival while the other isn’t. This is the difference between a ‘need’ and a ‘want.’

                  Is increased well-being not necessary in your worldview?

                  Considering how many people are able to live a significantly lower quality of life than what you’re advocating for, no. It’s not a ‘need.’ It’s a ‘want.’ There’s no limit to ‘increased well being.’ There is a limit to what the human body can take before it can no longer go on living.

                  Might want to brush up on your vocabulary. This is a pretty simple concept that even 2nd graders have no problem understanding.

              • TheBeege@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re arguing semantics while the intention is clear. Quit being pedantic.

                In our parents’ generation’s time, a public service job could fund a house, two kids, and annual vacations. We want that, or even more since we’re significantly more productive since those days. A job used to give us needs and a good amount of wants. Conflating the two in this context, while not perfectly precise, is irrelevant.

                • atetulo@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Needs and wants are different things and should be described as such.

      • Rory Butler Music@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The wording was a tad dramatic.

        I can afford to eat. But I can’t afford housing and any enjoyment comes with guilt from knowing itll have a knock on effect to my finances. I’m living with a parent (who similarly struggles to pay bills)

        It’s more a case of finding it hard to hit the bills and not being able to see a future where I’m comfortable.

        I’d say it’s mostly due to the cost of living rather than the pay. 10 years ago I’d be doing quite well, but the pay grades haven’t changed to meet inflation or accommodate for the high cost of living.

  • cyberpunk007@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably not taxes of the rich, who use havens and methods to avoid paying taxes. It’s the people paying.

      • sebinspace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        First rule of English: learn every word

        Second rule of English: Consistency is one of those words

        Third rule of English: Consistency does not apply to English

  • ieightpi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mind elaborating on this rich tax? I’m honestly curious but also feeling skeptical. I’m starting to think this is just a joke since it’s in meme form.

    • ScrotusMaximus@lemmy.ninja
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A grant (taxpayer money) funded company creating jobs that will eventually run out of money while having the double benefit of poors feeling empowered and forgetting/not caring who is siphoning off the value of the company slowly.

      Context: https://lemmy.ninja/comment/2180478

  • RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A facebook meme that isn’t nuclear waste level toxic dogshit? Either this is breaking my brain or I’m misinterpreting it.

  • MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been working at a rich ladies house the last few weeks.

    If you used her money to feed an entire town for a month, she wouldn’t even know.