8 ms·

Only 52% of americans own any stock whatsoever [0], and the richest 10% of americans own 84% of all stock. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-america

Only 52% of americans own any stock whatsoever [0], and the richest 10% of americans own 84% of all stock. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stocks-matching-record-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stock... [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085 https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085

lotsofpulp 6y ago
All taxpayers (since they will have to make up for shortfalls) and recipients of defined benefit pensions (since they will have to accept reductions in benefits) are also indirectly exposed to changes equity prices.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > All taxpayers (since they will have to make up for shortfalls) and recipients of defined benefit pensions (since they will have to accept reductions in benefits) are also indirectly exposed to changes equity prices. But that needs to be put in its proper context. Even if you have a small amount of stock or indirectly benefit from stock prices in some way, it'd be stupid if you let that mentally tie yourself to the stock market. For instance, shortfalls in taxes do not necessarily need to be made up by "all taxpayers." With progressive taxation, they can be made up by some taxpayers (which will likely consist of most HN commentators, since software engineers are relatively wealthy).
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Not if the shortfall is made up via asset price inflation and dollar devaluation. Then the non asset owning class takes the brunt of the pain. Which is what I believe has been happening for decades. Progressive taxation can help, but I doubt the political will exists to tax capital gains.
    - thephyber 6y ago
      > I doubt the political will exists to tax capital gains A friendly reminder that capital gains is taxed (when it is realized).* I assume that you are actually complaining about closing loopholes that exist for avoiding paying the full rate. * Obviously this comes with the caveat that the tax code is large with lots of "loopholes" (in quotes because they were mostly intentionally created). Capital gains losses are somehow socialized as tax deductions and the "carried interest loophole" allows certain fund managers to treat capital gains as a different class of income.
- zerocrates 6y ago
  The number of people in the US with defined benefit pensions is quite low and consistently falling.
at-fates-hands 6y ago
> and the richest 10% of americans own 84% of all stock. The top 20% of earners also handle close to 90% of the tax burden, while close to 50% of the population pay nothing in taxes.
- standardUser 6y ago
  In a society where the bottom 50% have virtually no wealth and are in debt, how much do you think they should pay in taxes and how do you expect them to pay for it?
- apazzolini 6y ago
  Man, that 50% of the population that's able to buy things without paying sales tax is really fortunate. How do I sign up for that benefit?
  - BetaDeltaAlpha 6y ago
    You could move to Oregon... ...In all seriousness, the parent comment was probably referring to the Federal Income Tax.
    - apazzolini 6y ago
      Yes, I'm aware that's what he was referring to, but it's not the entirety of the tax burden in the US, and even people who pay nothing in income tax still pay taxes. This is precisely why a flat tax disproportionally impacts lower income people.
      - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
        Unless it’s a flat tax on capital assets. I think it would be interesting to try out a model where _only_ capital assets are taxed. No sales tax, no income tax, no capital gains tax. It should dampen the effect of the rich getting richer only from rent collecting, while still making sure the market allocates capital to where it provides the most economic value (I.e can be turned into enough revenue to pay the tax in question)

lotsofpulp 6y ago

All taxpayers (since they will have to make up for shortfalls) and recipients of defined benefit pensions (since they will have to accept reductions in benefits) are also indirectly exposed to changes equity prices.

ardy42 6y ago
> All taxpayers (since they will have to make up for shortfalls) and recipients of defined benefit pensions (since they will have to accept reductions in benefits) are also indirectly exposed to changes equity prices. But that needs to be put in its proper context. Even if you have a small amount of stock or indirectly benefit from stock prices in some way, it'd be stupid if you let that mentally tie yourself to the stock market. For instance, shortfalls in taxes do not necessarily need to be made up by "all taxpayers." With progressive taxation, they can be made up by some taxpayers (which will likely consist of most HN commentators, since software engineers are relatively wealthy).
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Not if the shortfall is made up via asset price inflation and dollar devaluation. Then the non asset owning class takes the brunt of the pain. Which is what I believe has been happening for decades. Progressive taxation can help, but I doubt the political will exists to tax capital gains.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    > I doubt the political will exists to tax capital gains A friendly reminder that capital gains is taxed (when it is realized).* I assume that you are actually complaining about closing loopholes that exist for avoiding paying the full rate. * Obviously this comes with the caveat that the tax code is large with lots of "loopholes" (in quotes because they were mostly intentionally created). Capital gains losses are somehow socialized as tax deductions and the "carried interest loophole" allows certain fund managers to treat capital gains as a different class of income.
zerocrates 6y ago
The number of people in the US with defined benefit pensions is quite low and consistently falling.

at-fates-hands 6y ago

> and the richest 10% of americans own 84% of all stock. The top 20% of earners also handle close to 90% of the tax burden, while close to 50% of the population pay nothing in taxes.

standardUser 6y ago
In a society where the bottom 50% have virtually no wealth and are in debt, how much do you think they should pay in taxes and how do you expect them to pay for it?
apazzolini 6y ago
Man, that 50% of the population that's able to buy things without paying sales tax is really fortunate. How do I sign up for that benefit?
- BetaDeltaAlpha 6y ago
  You could move to Oregon... ...In all seriousness, the parent comment was probably referring to the Federal Income Tax.
  - apazzolini 6y ago
    Yes, I'm aware that's what he was referring to, but it's not the entirety of the tax burden in the US, and even people who pay nothing in income tax still pay taxes. This is precisely why a flat tax disproportionally impacts lower income people.
    - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
      Unless it’s a flat tax on capital assets. I think it would be interesting to try out a model where _only_ capital assets are taxed. No sales tax, no income tax, no capital gains tax. It should dampen the effect of the rich getting richer only from rent collecting, while still making sure the market allocates capital to where it provides the most economic value (I.e can be turned into enough revenue to pay the tax in question)