Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

Supply and demand. The more of something being sold, the lower the equilibrium price falls. If holding stocks incurs a cost, you need to sell.

An actual fall would be unlikely; It may simply rise at a slower rate. After all, holding the stock /still increases the holder's wealth/. Increasing one's wealth is a strange interpretation of incurring a cost.

And if a market is so fragile that it cannot even survive with "only" 80% of the share value growth its currently experiencing, then that's a stupidly fragile bubble, and shouldn't be the basis for a market.

When people are selling, the price falls. Then you aren't taxing anyway. It wouldn't stop market growth entirely, but it would put a downward force on it.

A relatively minor downward force on share price, perhaps, though certainly not precipitating a fall, given those shares still reap dividends.

And frankly, I don't give a shit about a small mitigation of the obscene profit margins of 100-millionaires.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

"In my opinion" your think tank leans?

OK then, right back at you. You claimed my thinktank was biased. But that's just your opinion and you're not a tax expert.

The fact of the matter is we both provided think tanks. Neither had more authority than the other.



You gave one that favours big business. In this conversation, that's functionally identical; yours and mine are two sides of the same discussion.

Wikipedia literally says your source is a progressive think tank. It says nothing about any leaning on my source, only you have stated they lean and you're no tax expert.

Only you have said they lean big business; and, again, you're no tax expert and I'm supposed to just believe you?

 

[Gergar12]

Get... Every... Old... Self... Serving... Douche... Out... Of... Congress...


Even the younger elected MAGA Republicans are somehow less bad than the oldest economically right-wing Democrats.

 

[Agema]

Get... Every... Old... Self... Serving... Douche... Out... Of... Congress...

Who cares what any of them say in these farces? It's not policy, it's theatre.

I can guarantee that if Trump takes over and ensures the government is completely idle on monopolies and other corporate abuses, Hawley will have nothing at all to say about it. But you can bet he'll carry on banging on about it for social media likes with no actual law or policy ever seeing the light of day.

 

[Gergar12]

Who cares what any of them say in these farces? It's not policy, it's theatre.

I can guarantee that if Trump takes over and ensures the government is completely idle on monopolies and other corporate abuses, Hawley will have nothing at all to say about it. But you can bet he'll carry on banging on about it for social media likes with no actual law or policy ever seeing the light of day.

You do realize he takes no corporate pac money. And he has a point here.

 

[tstorm823]

Which is it now ? Either people are basically paying the same, just at different times or they actually pay more. If the first was the case, the price would not be influenced.

Well now it's neither, cause it's a counterfactual analysis. We're talking about what isn't.

To one hypothetical, if we assume it's a tax that would just be paid and people wouldn't behave differently, it is just a tax on the same value as capital gains at a different time, functionally the same as just raising capital gains tax.

To the other hypothetical, considering how people might behave different given that additional tax, it's less. The wealthy would need to sell, which would drive down the price of stocks, which would decrease the capital gains taxes paid, hurt people's retirement accounts, and disincentivize investing in companies. Like, imagine you get on board a company right before it explodes in value, your wealth skyrockets, you get taxed for that, and next year the company tanks and the stocks are worth less than the taxes on them. You don't have to think about that scenario when you just apply the tax when the asset turns to cash.

 

[Cicada 5]

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

View attachment 12329

I can't feel bad for them. Their mindless hatred of Obama led them to want to destroy something just because it had his name attached, and they couldn't put that hatred aside for the few minutes it would've taken to find out that the ACA is "Obamacare".

 

[Phoenixmgs]

View attachment 12329

Why would the ACA be going away? Talk about misinformation...

 

[tstorm823]

I can't feel bad for them. Their mindless hatred of Obama led them to want to destroy something just because it had his name attached, and they couldn't put that hatred aside for the few minutes it would've taken to find out that the ACA is "Obamacare".

I can't feel bad for them because it's a combination of performative BS to get attention and outright paid propaganda. Nobody voted in 2024 based on wanting to repeal Obamacare but only just now learned it's the ACA.

You guys are really, really gullible.

 

[Cicada 5]

Yes, I'm sure every instance of people being dissatisfied with Trump is performative to you guys.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, I'm sure every instance of people being dissatisfied with Trump is performative to you guys.

Nobody said that

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

and disincentivize investing in companies

Buying stocks is not "investing in companies."

Companies don't make any money from their stock price going up. The only time a company makes money on stocks is when stock is issued. When that stock is traded back and forth between people like pokemon cards the company isn't making any money off of it, and buying that stock isn't "investing" in the company, it's just holding an asset.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean, it's "investing" in the sense that you get a small fraction of legal rights and a share of the dividends, but that's a semantic argument

Company doesn't see any of it though

 

[Casual Shinji]

View attachment 12329

This may very well still be post-election rage, but... fuck 'm. I'll feel bad for the people suffering who DIDN'T knowingly vote for a facist. You got what you wanted, I hope it fucking hurts as bad as is possible.

 

[tstorm823]

Buying stocks is not "investing in companies."

Companies don't make any money from their stock price going up. The only time a company makes money on stocks is when stock is issued. When that stock is traded back and forth between people like pokemon cards the company isn't making any money off of it, and buying that stock isn't "investing" in the company, it's just holding an asset.

You mean most buying stocks is not investing in companies, but that original issuance of the stock certainly is, and it's hit by these hypothetical taxes is exactly the same way as some who came in trading later.

 

[Silvanus]

Wikipedia literally says your source is a progressive think tank. It says nothing about any leaning on my source, only you have stated they lean and you're no tax expert.

So your judgement on whether a think tank leans on a certain question is whether fucking wikipedia calls it progressive or not, and if not you take its word as unbiased.

Are you seriously that easily led?

 

[BrawlMan]

Are you seriously that easily led?

Yes.

Jail this fucker, Tate already. He is not getting out of this either way. Even if the human trafficking doesn't stick, he still has to face the lawsuits that are from 4 women in the U.K. The sexual harassment and the rape charges. Him and his brother aren't going anywhere. The fact certsin people tried to say and lie about him being off the hook on twitter is astounding.

Fact Check: Andrew Tate human trafficking case has not been dismissed

Multiple posts on social media claimed that the case against Andrew Tate in Romania had been thrown out

www.newsweek.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So your judgement on whether a think tank leans on a certain question is whether fucking wikipedia calls it progressive or not, and if not you take its word as unbiased.

Are you seriously that easily led?

If Wikipedia says it, then they probably have a super obvious lean. Again, YOU are the only one that has said my source leans in whatever way, I'm not taking what you say as some expert opinion nor higher than what Wikipedia says either. If I merely said your source was "XYZ" with no backing whatsoever, you'd say prove it. Again, I gave you reasons that you don't want to discuss and keep editing out (even though you asked for them).

 

[Silvanus]

If Wikipedia says it, then they probably have a super obvious lean.
Again, YOU are the only one that has said my source leans in whatever way, I'm not taking what you say as some expert opinion nor higher than what Wikipedia says either. If I merely said your source was "XYZ" with no backing whatsoever, you'd say prove it. Again, I gave you reasons that you don't want to discuss and keep editing out (even though you asked for them).

My god, you are that easily led.

Think for yourself. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Whoever wrote that line has as much authority as I do on whether something leans or not.

And by the way: it doesn't require particular expertise to identify a bias; it just requires basic media comprehension. But since you get your judgements on this matter second-hand, that's something you severely lack.