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

Microblog Memes

5402 readers
3059 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!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

So how does taxing unrealized gains work. If I purchase stock X at a specific price. If the stock goes up and I now am holding 150% of my original value. Let's say it hovers there for 3 more years. After 3 years it tanks and is now worth only 50% of my original purchases. Are people suggesting that I pay taxes on the unrealized gain of 50%, even though I end up selling at loss and have realized negative value. Doesn't that mean I am being taxed on losing money? How does that make sense?

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The moment you use them as a collateral, they should be taxed as money.

You took a 10 billions loan with the actions you have as collateral? You pay taxes on these 10 billions.

Right now, the system is rigged because the richs get to transform their collateral into liquidity while paying 0 taxes on that, and they can even write off the interest on the interest incurred.

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I guess that's whats lost in the meme. Just because you "can" use something as collateral doesn't mean you "are" using something as collateral. The language should be more accurate to describe actual use vs hypothetical.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 11 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

What's crazy is to calculate the average US income the census folks of the US government exclude billionaires because it would skew reality so much that people would call bullshit on the average with billionaires in the mix.

so they get to be excluded from the "average wage per family" calculations made and distributed by the government.

[–] Aezora@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I think you're conflating average and mean. When it comes to income average is typically median, which does include billionaires but wouldn't skew the data due to their inclusion.

[–] Animated_beans@lemmy.world 2 points 31 minutes ago (1 children)

Average and mean are the same thing (sum of everything divided by total number of things). Median is the middle number.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 23 minutes ago

Colloquially, average is the mean. Mathematically, average can be either mean, median, or mode.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago

Could I see the numbers?

[–] sketelon@eviltoast.org 2 points 2 hours ago

I've never heard that, would be wild if that's truly how they do it, I wonder what the average would be if they included the billionaire family's.

[–] Rakudjo@lemmy.world 19 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

You're "free" to die in a cardboard box under a freeway

Actually... They made that illegal. You're free to rot in prison for being homeless, though!

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Sitting here, watching every town council around my area pass a homeless ban after that SCOTUS ruling. Even the newspaper suddenly switched and said popular opinion swung 180 degrees in the last six months.

What the fuck does one do at that point? It's obviously manufactured consent. It's blatantly unconstitutional to tell people they can't exist on public land. It's a human rights violation to be stuffed into a shelter that demands you be a better human than people who already have housing in order to get house money. At this point we're just turning the homeless into the new scary minority.

If it's one homeless guy dieing under the bridge it's a capitalist scarecrow sothat other people work harder.

If it's a hundred homeless guys dieing under bridges the people understand that the problem is not them, but capitalism. That's illegal.

[–] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Three hots and a cot is better than nothing…

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 1 hour ago

I've got a guillotine they can put to good use.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Can't have unrealized gains in a system that doesn't have stocks. Abolish the stock market.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

You absolutely can have unrealized gains without a stock market. Build a business. Someone wants to buy it from you for $150,000 this year, someone else wants to buy it from you for $250,000 next year, you have unrealized gains of $100,000 from last year to this year.

What we can do is apply an annual wealth tax of 1% of all registered securities, (stocks, bonds, etc) and exempt the first $10 million of each natural person. You don't have to sell your shares; the SEC knows how much you're holding, and will transfer them automatically to IRS liquidators, who will resell them on the open market in small lots, no more than 1% of total traded volume per month.

Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk lose 1% of their empires per year until they are worth less than $10 million.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago

Someone wants to buy it from you

There's your problem. Business shouldn't be bought and sold either.

What we can do is apply an annual wealth tax of 1% of all registered securities, (stocks, bonds, etc) and exempt the first $10 million of each natural person.

That's not my preferred solution, but I'd take it over nothing.

They would shit themselves screaming despite how easily they could handle it

[–] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I wouldn't be a huge fan of taxing unrealized gains if we hadn't been cutting taxes for the rich for 50 years. How else are we ever going to recover from that? These guys COULD have done the right thing and supported sensible taxation policies, but they didn't, so fuck 'em. At this point it's either this or the guillotine.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 2 hours ago

About 70 years.

[–] nexguy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

TBH I'm not even considered middle class where I live but I have Unrealized Gains in the form of $VYM and Bitcoin.

I think we should tax loans where stocks are used as Collateral, or set a high bar for Unrealized Gains Tax.

[–] evidences@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

The bar being talked about right now is a net worth of 100million usd, do you have a net worth of 100million? If not your bitcoin is safe.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago (5 children)

Maybe some current proposed legislature has set that bar, but this picture of a tweet does not talk about that.

[–] TastehWaffleZ@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

That picture is referencing Kamala's proposed tax policy where she wants to tax unrealized capital gains on individuals worth 100mill exclusively

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

What if the government finds out about the science experiment in the back of my fridge??? Somethings brewing back there and I'm telling you it's going to be valuable.

load more comments
view more: next ›