3 ms·

> Because I believe it will make society flourish. Consistently devaluing everybody else's investment (via new shares) is essentially just mandatory inflation,

> Because I believe it will make society flourish. Consistently devaluing everybody else's investment (via new shares) is essentially just mandatory inflation, on top of existing inflation. Not to sound rude, but this is basic econ stuff. You can't just increase the supply of something and expect the value to keep increasing.

sam_lowry_ 1y ago
Exactly! Inflation is a tax on poor already, so why not double-tax the rich via share dilution and Zucman tax.
- richwater 1y ago
  If you think taxing the stock market only affects the "rich" you are severely out of touch or intentionally ignorant. 401k, defined benefit pension plans, etc are uses by millions and millions of middle class people.
  - baseballdork 1y ago
    Sure, lots of people are in the market. However, a very small portion of people own the overwhelming majority of the market. Top 10% owned 93% of shares in 2023. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-ownership-wealthiest-americans-one-percent-record-high-economy-2024-1?op=1 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market...
    - danaris 1y ago
      Yes, and that fact—if not the precise proportions—would likely remain true regardless. The rich are in a position to buy up the shares distributed this way, while the non-rich are mostly in a position to need cash most of the time. If you want to tax the rich, just be honest about it and tax the fucking rich. Anything less is simply not going to work.
      - Gud 1y ago
        Why would it "not work"? The whole point of my idea is the wealth redistribution. Taxing the rich does not have the same effect as redistributing shares in the economy, from the generational wealthy to everyone else. If the "non rich" receive $50,000 in shares when they are born, that will generate a lot of dividends over the years. They would no longer be born into poverty and would no longer need cash "most of the time". Everyone would get richer, except for the already well off.
        bruce511 1y ago
        When you are poor, and you need cash, you sell things of value. If you give a rich person 50k in shares, chances are he'll keep it. If you give a poor person 50k in shares, he'll sell it. The rich person has sufficient immediate resources so that he can afford to take a long view. The poor person has immediate needs, and thus has a short term view. Thus one-time wealth transfers are ineffective. Money tends to flow towards money. Those with money are best positioned to start a new business, and extract maximum revenue from that business. Those without money have to earn as employees. Those with money have resources and (especially) time, to educate themselves above their current skillset. In short, any single redistribution is a short term solution. It will have short term benefits, but in the medium term all the wealth will flow back together again. This is not a bug in the system. It is the explicit end-goal of capitalism. You can't fix yhe underlying problem by random redistributions. This is not new. It's been going on for hundreds, or thousands of years. Over and over the cycle repeats. It usually ends in a bloody revolution, with a redistribution. (Think French, Russian revolutions as examples.) Then the wealth simply starts flowing together again. Socialism (as distinct from communism) such as we see in much of Western Europe, seeks to tax economic activity (as distinct to accumulated wealth) [somewhat mitigated by inheritance taxes] to provide a continuous redistribution. Capitalism (such as we see in the US) taxes economic activity in order to funnel funds to the wealthy. (Rich companies get rich govt contracts.) Every person believes their system is the best. This makes changing the system hard. Explaining to a person in the US how the system makes them poor, does not make them vote against the system. It just makes them dream of becoming rich. Unfortunately "simple" schemes such as yours fo not address the underlying cause, only the symptoms. And for this reason it wouldn't achieve the goals you are hoping for. Which is a pity, because those goals are achievable, and some countries have made strides in that direction. Norway, for example, has the sovereign wealth fund. It gives every citizen a dividend every year. It avoids wealth consolidation simply by distributing the dividends, not thd shares themselves.
- creer 1y ago
  > Inflation is a tax on poor already It's a common trope but no. "The poor" don't live / operate on savings. "The poor", kinda by definition live by earning a paycheck or receiving subsidies and spending it all. As long as you have a stable situation (say, fixed x% inflation day in, day out) then what currency that paycheck is denominated in, is totally irrelevant. Money in minus money out equal still no savings in any dodgy currency. (It's different when there is the chaos of hyper-inflation - where the paycheck of one week cannot buy the groceries of the next.) Inflation is a tax on people with savings and investments. Not on the poor but on everybody else. Poor retirees, yes.
  - NalNezumi 1y ago
    This argument feels slightly strawman, by redefining poor to the absolute lower edge of a group of people. In reality, most poor people I know does manage to save a tiny, miniscule amount each month. What they can't afford, is investing. Because the amount saved is so tiny, many investment apparatus doesn't apply to their tiny savings (fees just gobble up any gains made on that tiny amount) and they often desperately need the liquidity for their ever unpredictable life circumstances. These factors are ofc made worse in country like US where liquidity is your safety net, not social safety nets. So, whatever small, tiny amount of savings they have is disproportionately being obliterated by inflation. Because unlike middle class that can throw it in a fund that can keep it above inflation rate, their savings are often cash, taking direct, unmitigated hit of the inflation
    - creer 1y ago
      Sure. And in the US there is a noticeable class with little savings but not "poor": Particularly noticeable when they have clearly not low income - but cannot manage to accumulate savings or have no interest in accumulating savings. They like more expensive cars than necessary, and homes, vacations, eating out, whatever. Little savings but can't be described as "poor". And for them also, inflation is not a significant factor. Their savings are low compared to income. Still: inflation not a tax on the poor but a tax on anyone with savings and investments. Some of which are poor, yes. One might say "liquidity" savings are particularly difficult to protect - but really, many investments are not a great defense either. Defending any investments against inflation is difficult. Among which, "throwing it in a fund" might keep it a little above official inflation numbers - but also might not provide serious return above that, and exposes emergency funds to volatility. So, to me, that doesn't solve the problem of inflation - poor or not. A tool, not a solution.
Gud 1y ago
Yes, it will devalue existing shares, which are mostly owned by a small part of the population. It’s not “everybody else’s”. I am not saying the value of the shares will increase, I am saying the value will be redistributed.

sam_lowry_ 1y ago

Exactly! Inflation is a tax on poor already, so why not double-tax the rich via share dilution and Zucman tax.

richwater 1y ago
If you think taxing the stock market only affects the "rich" you are severely out of touch or intentionally ignorant. 401k, defined benefit pension plans, etc are uses by millions and millions of middle class people.
- baseballdork 1y ago
  Sure, lots of people are in the market. However, a very small portion of people own the overwhelming majority of the market. Top 10% owned 93% of shares in 2023. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-ownership-wealthiest-americans-one-percent-record-high-economy-2024-1?op=1 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market...
  - danaris 1y ago
    Yes, and that fact—if not the precise proportions—would likely remain true regardless. The rich are in a position to buy up the shares distributed this way, while the non-rich are mostly in a position to need cash most of the time. If you want to tax the rich, just be honest about it and tax the fucking rich. Anything less is simply not going to work.
    - Gud 1y ago
      Why would it "not work"? The whole point of my idea is the wealth redistribution. Taxing the rich does not have the same effect as redistributing shares in the economy, from the generational wealthy to everyone else. If the "non rich" receive $50,000 in shares when they are born, that will generate a lot of dividends over the years. They would no longer be born into poverty and would no longer need cash "most of the time". Everyone would get richer, except for the already well off.
      - bruce511 1y ago
        When you are poor, and you need cash, you sell things of value. If you give a rich person 50k in shares, chances are he'll keep it. If you give a poor person 50k in shares, he'll sell it. The rich person has sufficient immediate resources so that he can afford to take a long view. The poor person has immediate needs, and thus has a short term view. Thus one-time wealth transfers are ineffective. Money tends to flow towards money. Those with money are best positioned to start a new business, and extract maximum revenue from that business. Those without money have to earn as employees. Those with money have resources and (especially) time, to educate themselves above their current skillset. In short, any single redistribution is a short term solution. It will have short term benefits, but in the medium term all the wealth will flow back together again. This is not a bug in the system. It is the explicit end-goal of capitalism. You can't fix yhe underlying problem by random redistributions. This is not new. It's been going on for hundreds, or thousands of years. Over and over the cycle repeats. It usually ends in a bloody revolution, with a redistribution. (Think French, Russian revolutions as examples.) Then the wealth simply starts flowing together again. Socialism (as distinct from communism) such as we see in much of Western Europe, seeks to tax economic activity (as distinct to accumulated wealth) [somewhat mitigated by inheritance taxes] to provide a continuous redistribution. Capitalism (such as we see in the US) taxes economic activity in order to funnel funds to the wealthy. (Rich companies get rich govt contracts.) Every person believes their system is the best. This makes changing the system hard. Explaining to a person in the US how the system makes them poor, does not make them vote against the system. It just makes them dream of becoming rich. Unfortunately "simple" schemes such as yours fo not address the underlying cause, only the symptoms. And for this reason it wouldn't achieve the goals you are hoping for. Which is a pity, because those goals are achievable, and some countries have made strides in that direction. Norway, for example, has the sovereign wealth fund. It gives every citizen a dividend every year. It avoids wealth consolidation simply by distributing the dividends, not thd shares themselves.
creer 1y ago
> Inflation is a tax on poor already It's a common trope but no. "The poor" don't live / operate on savings. "The poor", kinda by definition live by earning a paycheck or receiving subsidies and spending it all. As long as you have a stable situation (say, fixed x% inflation day in, day out) then what currency that paycheck is denominated in, is totally irrelevant. Money in minus money out equal still no savings in any dodgy currency. (It's different when there is the chaos of hyper-inflation - where the paycheck of one week cannot buy the groceries of the next.) Inflation is a tax on people with savings and investments. Not on the poor but on everybody else. Poor retirees, yes.
- NalNezumi 1y ago
  This argument feels slightly strawman, by redefining poor to the absolute lower edge of a group of people. In reality, most poor people I know does manage to save a tiny, miniscule amount each month. What they can't afford, is investing. Because the amount saved is so tiny, many investment apparatus doesn't apply to their tiny savings (fees just gobble up any gains made on that tiny amount) and they often desperately need the liquidity for their ever unpredictable life circumstances. These factors are ofc made worse in country like US where liquidity is your safety net, not social safety nets. So, whatever small, tiny amount of savings they have is disproportionately being obliterated by inflation. Because unlike middle class that can throw it in a fund that can keep it above inflation rate, their savings are often cash, taking direct, unmitigated hit of the inflation
  - creer 1y ago
    Sure. And in the US there is a noticeable class with little savings but not "poor": Particularly noticeable when they have clearly not low income - but cannot manage to accumulate savings or have no interest in accumulating savings. They like more expensive cars than necessary, and homes, vacations, eating out, whatever. Little savings but can't be described as "poor". And for them also, inflation is not a significant factor. Their savings are low compared to income. Still: inflation not a tax on the poor but a tax on anyone with savings and investments. Some of which are poor, yes. One might say "liquidity" savings are particularly difficult to protect - but really, many investments are not a great defense either. Defending any investments against inflation is difficult. Among which, "throwing it in a fund" might keep it a little above official inflation numbers - but also might not provide serious return above that, and exposes emergency funds to volatility. So, to me, that doesn't solve the problem of inflation - poor or not. A tool, not a solution.

Gud 1y ago

Yes, it will devalue existing shares, which are mostly owned by a small part of the population. It’s not “everybody else’s”. I am not saying the value of the shares will increase, I am saying the value will be redistributed.