3 ms·
Not on any significant scale no. And trying to make the 99% buy into something by making that exact claim ("not only rich people own stocks") has been thoroughl
by 1_2__3 10y ago
Not on any significant scale no. And trying to make the 99% buy into something by making that exact claim ("not only rich people own stocks") has been thoroughly debunked as propaganda.
Yes, you are correct, but only academically. In practice the 99% benefit very little from the stock market while the 1% makes most of their money from it.
- witty_username 10y agoSource for debunking? Many people indirectly purchase stocks through investments. For example, I might invest in a mutual fund which buys stock. Also, bonds and other instruments are linked to stock prices. So if stock prices go up, interest rates of bonds and debts go up too. Even if the 99% are not investing in stocks currently, they can in the future; so they can profit from corporate tax abolition.
- phkahler 10y agoThe key is to ask what portion of ones income is from investments. Or simply the ability to quit working and live on the investment income. For most of the middle class, their investments are hoped to fund their retirement, not any portion of their current lifestyle. That's why it doesn't matter that so much is in tax deferred retirement accounts.
- witty_username 10y agoBut it funds their current lifestyle indirectly as without investments one would have to cut down on expenses to save more for retirement. If tomorrow investments doubled money in a year, then people would work far less.
- phkahler 10y agoSo saving for the future "funds their current lifestyle"? I don't see a sarcasm tag on that.
- witty_username 10y agoNo sarcasm; I gave an explanation how that occurs indirectly in some sense. Essentially, with better investment earnings, you need to save less for retirement; which allows better current lifestyle. What would you do if investments doubled your money in a year?