this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
537 points (97.2% liked)

Political Memes

8884 readers
3223 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bort@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

would that involve getting rid of publicly traded/owned companies?

no

would that in turn mean only one person could own a company and not allow investments?

also no

[–] hannes3120@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)
[–] Liz@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Some eutopia idea they will never come close to implementing. Here's a reasonable fix for the stock market.

  1. Have capital gains add to income instead of having a separate tax rate. (Really unlikely) Keep the exception on the first half million.

  2. Remove the duty to investors that publicly traded companies have. (Also crazy unlikely)

  3. Require all shares in a company pay out annual dividends tired to gross profit. Let's say 1% of gross profit must be handed out as dividends. (Unlikely, but not absurdly so)

  4. Institute a 1% per-trade tax paid by the buyer. (Never gonna happen)

Anyway, we're fucked.

[–] hannes3120@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't understand the reason for #3 - could you explain?

The rest are great - number one is my personal favourite, too, since it would either result in much more money for the government to invest or (if the tax income stays the same) much lower taxes for most people

[–] bort@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

many stocks are fantasy values, which are disconnected from the actual performance of the underlying company. #3 would reconnect the stockvalue to the company value (my guess)

[–] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah pretty much. It would increase the amount of value the stock holds that's directly tied to the performance of the company. Comparatively, then, buying and selling for a profit would be less attractive. Buying and holding would be more attractive.

You'd have to play with the numbers to get it to an "ideal" ratio, and fantasy and speculative stocks would still exist, but it would still help reduce their prevalence.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)