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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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 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.
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”.