546
submitted 10 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 65 points 10 months ago
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago

Abolishing the stock market in general would be nice, or at least moving towards that direction gradually. The wealthy don't typically get their money from great trading, but parking their money and letting it grow.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The stock market itself isn't the problem either though, it's that the wealthy have money and the poor do not. If you want to buy a house and you don't have the cash for it, you need to borrow from someone...and that means someone who has a lot of money. And you'll pay interest for the privilege because there is a time value of money. That doesn't go away without a stock market.

The real solution is to tax the wealth itself, either directly or through taxing the step-up in value after the owner of a stock dies, or a massively increased estate tax.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] SoupBrick@yiffit.net 43 points 10 months ago

Don't worry, it'll trickle down.... Annny day now.

[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

I can already feel it trickle on me! No wait, that‘s asbestos.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Just give it 30 years or so, and we'll be swimming in that sweet sweet mesothelioma money.

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

It's ok though because they sprayed it down with urine first.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago

This is an important thing to note when someone claims that you should be eager about stock market performance because of your [comparative handful of] shares in your retirement account. Accounts such as the 401k were probably devised to tie up regular people's money into the stock market, injecting more money into it and making it seem more important (and thus worth bailing out).

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 19 points 10 months ago

They were devised to get rid of pensions so companies didn't need to care for their employees, they could just have the option to match input, but retirement was made to be 100% on us.

More bullshit to benefit corporations, but to be honest there are so many scumbags out there and so many pension plans that were stolen from, I don't know how to feel about it.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

It was also devised so that when a crash occurs, the lower classes get wiped out, the rich still have piles of cash, and they get to buy up everything at fractions of a penny on the dollar.

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You know exactly how to feel about it. Douchebag MBA's who think they're Masters of the Universe gamble with other people's retirement money. And all those sweet sweet fees...

We should invest in guillotines.

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

That and it artificially inflates stocks by creating regular buy pressure. Stocks are almost completely worthless unless you get a whale that wants to buy out the company or a large controlling share. It's not like you can just cash in your share to the company and they give you a percentage of the current value. You have to find someone else that wants to buy it.

[-] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

This point is huge and seemingly overlooked by most people? Once a majority of boomers start pulling their 401k money I don't think millennials and gen x will be putting as much money back in.

[-] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

They really cooked up such a great Ponzi with 401k. I'm sure it'll get rugged right when we come of age to cash out.

[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Accounts such as the 401k were probably devised to tie up regular people’s money into the stock market

Aren't pensions also tied up in the stock market. Yes there's a difference of who manages and how the contributions are made, but both plans put the security of your retirement in the market in some capacity, right?

[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Pensions also allocate some funds in stocks, but overall they invest conservatively. By default, most 401k funds are set to a target retirement date fund and early on those are mostly stocks. These funds also often have significant annual fees. Instead of a single large fund managed conservatively, you have many individual funds that are managed all over the place. The common advice is to invest more aggressively when you're younger, there has also been a huge push toward ETFs which are their own tangled mess and have a potential for trouble in the future, but that's a different topic.

[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Are the fees of target funds usually that significant? Vanguard Target Funds have an expense ratio of 0.08%. They say the average comparative fund is 0.44%, which is a bit high for my liking, but not terribel compared to other managed funds. https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vfifx#performance-fees

[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Vanguard is good with fees. That 0.44% is an average so there are also funds that charge more. I think fees have come down as 1) more attention was brought to them 2) Such funds became more computerized and straightforward to manage. Still, a 0.44% average fee each year is a significant chunk of change.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] badbytes@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

And you thought Monopoly was just a game!

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Half of the game. You're supposed to end the Monopoly phase when everyone gets frustrated, and switch to the Prosperity rules.

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1105295/prosperity

[-] Patches@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Close.

Halfway through the game you're supposed to end the Monopoly phase and switch to eating the rich. This redistributes the wealth and allows everyone a fair chance again.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 22 points 10 months ago

Billionaires shouldn't exist.

[-] alienanimals@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

The "Eat the rich" crowd continues to do absolutely nothing.

[-] CmdData@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Unfortunately cannibalism is still unwelcome in society 😔

[-] Aux@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Just become rich, no need to eat anyone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Seems weird to make this assertion, and fail to provide what the total holdings cutoff is to be in the top 10%.

[-] aaaantoine@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Right. Is it 10 figures? 7 figures?

... 5 figures?

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Almost like it's clickbait designed for echo chambers like eattherich.

Don't get me wrong, fuck the rich. But bold claims like this need to show their methodology. Hiding it is sus.

[-] phillaholic@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

“The 1%” is the catchphrase, but that’s only a net worth of about $10 Million. The people they are really mad at are the 0.01% or lower. This article uses 10% which is about $850,000 in net worth.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

According to Wikipedia it's an annual income of 154k as of 2019.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sleepdrifter@startrek.website 12 points 10 months ago

My wife and I constantly lament how we were born a few decades too late. For everything

[-] Patches@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Born too late to explore the world, born too early to explore space. Born just in time to explore Dank memes.

[-] sleepdrifter@startrek.website 2 points 10 months ago

Truly, a time to be alive.

[-] Illegal_Prime@dmv.social 11 points 10 months ago

One thing the article doesn’t make super clear to me is if that figure includes investment funds and whatnot, and to what degree. It sounds like it might but elaborated very little beyond a vague statistic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] arc@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

Cause and effect

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 9 points 10 months ago

No shit. If someone does not have money they don't need then they can not buy stocks or any investment.

[-] echo 8 points 10 months ago

Is this really a new thing? Haven't the rich always been the stock-holders?

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Tax stock over 100,000 shares 1% per current price, per stock, per quarter.

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

Guillotine anyone who tries to buy a yacht or private jet.

[-] blady_blah@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I don't think it's good to have such wealth inequality, but I do this general investment into the stock market should be encouraged.

401ks are so much better than pensions as a retirement vehicle. Better return on investment and more financial separation from the company I work for. I never worry about someone raiding the pension fund or a company going bankrupt, and I've received much better return on investments than the numbers you hear from pension funds! That's not even considering 401k matching......

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago
[-] comfydecal@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So if everyone in the US stops buying publically traded companies, it would bankrupt the top 10%?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Only if you're including the top 10%. The vast majority of retail investing makes little difference even when combined, in comparison to institutional investing.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
546 points (97.2% liked)

News

23361 readers
3207 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