• Aurix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    164
    ·
    10 months ago

    Bruh, if you had invested your school lunch money instead of literally eating it and thus draining it down the toilet, you would have been a millionaire by now. Subscribe for more of my finance tips for just $20 a month.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      ·
      10 months ago

      If you mean a small tax per share when purchased then that would be a great idea. Make high frequency trading, that contributes zero to society, unprofitable. It wouldn’t hurt household investors as the tax would be small but it would hurt the assholes who manipulate prices through trading back and forth.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        High frequency trading is fully automated insider trading done in broad daylight, but nothing gets done about it because most people don’t understand what it is. It shouldn’t be taxed; it should be illegal.

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s a long and convoluted route from that to their 401ks not bring as plump as they could be. Indirect robbery of thousands is more palatable than being mugged for a few dollars.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I wish I remembered the name of it but there was a really interesting documentary/video about how crazy the rapid trading got, to the point that companies were trying to install systems as close as physically possible to the physical location of the NASDAQ so their requests would have less “travel” time and show up before anyone else.

          Absolute insanity…

          • Copernican@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah. Didn’t the feds have to regulate that so that it was an equal playing field for transaction latency?

        • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          We’re not asking for 5 minute intervals. Just 1-2 second intervals would stop that automated stuff, or at least diminish it significantly. How about setting it to how long it takes light to go around the world twice +1 second?

    • Boozilla@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 months ago

      Hard agree. Make it impossible to dodge with loopholes for the wealthy. Eliminate capital gains and losses Taxing every trade is the only fair way to do it. And people don’t need shares of stock to live, so it’s not a burden on the poor.

      • Snot Flickerman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        10 months ago

        Don’t worry, they’ll raise a panic alarm about how everyone and their brothers retirement pensions are invested in the market, and so “you’ll hurt the poor” will resound, ignoring that a lot of those poor never had a choice to not have their pensions gambled on the fucking market.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The stock market shouldn’t be abolished without also abolishing other aspects of Capitalism, yes. Workers must currently take advantage of everything they can within the current system. However, people should be striving towards worker ownership of the Means of Production, and keeping the stock market would allow Capitalism to resurface.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Or, require a stock buyer to hold that stock for 365 days before they can sell it. Then tax the sale.

  • the_q@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    10 months ago

    Well of course they do. That’s the whole point of the legal scam of investing. If it benefits regular people it wouldn’t exist.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

      • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.

            • Copernican@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I fully agree on .44% being high. I raise an eyebrow on anything over .10%. But if you follow the old reddit personal finance prime directive… You should max out your 401k inso far as you maximize the employer match. Then max out your Roth IRA where you hopefully have access to better expense ratio target funds. I have been trying out the 0% Fidelity index mutual funds as opposed to older S&P500 funds to maximize potential there.

              I haven’t really looked at the robo brokers though. What are fees like for betterment and the like?

              Either way, I think people are shooting themselves in the foot for not investing in index funds or target funds out of moral principle. Unfortunately there isn’t much other safety net for your retirement, and you’re probably going to be forced to spend cash for everyday goods from major corporations. Might as well try to secure some value of those same corporations at the same time instead of letting your savings constantly depreciate over time.

  • pensivepangolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    No no you guys all don’t understand that this is a good thing because… (let me check my notes…) ….uh…hm…derrr…communism.

  • Illegal_Prime@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    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.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It is extremely vague, because the top 10% of Americans in net worth are those who have over about $850,000.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

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

  • blady_blah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    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…