Stock Market/Investing/Day Trading/Speculative Trading Thread

[Toe]

Nobody. Even Bernie. He says a lot of shit just because he knows how base is crazy af.

Nah, mostly it's about shifting the Overton window.

 

[Jim14510]

Nah, mostly it's about shifting the Overton window.

How is that different than what I said?

 

[Faux Sean Callahan]

Prayers for @God is a Husker if this passes

 

[God is a Husker]

Prayers for @God is a Husker if this passes

It’s cute they renamed it, but it will never pass because it is an impossibility.

(also hilarious that it’s household income + wealth of $100 million and they call it a Billionaire tax, under this 10x household wealth + income logic = most of us ITT are millionaires. 🥳 )


Taxing unrealized gains is moot.

- tank the stock market
- tank banking/credit industry
- tank the real estate market
- destroy Agriculture
- tank the economy

Also:
- impossible to calculate
- impossible to enforce
- would lose in Tax Court every time



WHY do they make it so hard? There are so many other easier/legal/actual ways to increase tax revenue and add even greater equity. (making ultra rich pay more)

In my opinion the only logical explanation for proposals like this is that they (DC) have no intention of raising taxes on the wealthy they just want to look like they are doing things because they know the general public are illiterate morons who will continue to vote along party lines if you give them a reason to.





PS: to anybody who wants examples of other things we could do with the tax code to bring in more revenue/make it even more “progressive” (in the tax system use of the word) just look back through this thread, @Jim14510 and I have given many examples. (and so have other people ITT) If Democrats and Republicans were actually serious about helping out lower/middle class Americans, while brining in even more tax revenue to actually pay for Government spending, they easily could. I need another coffee I’m grumpy now.

 

[redzoner]

It’s cute they renamed it, but it will never pass because it is an impossibility.

(also hilarious that it’s household income + wealth of $100 million and they call it a Billionaire tax, under this 10x household wealth + income logic = most of us ITT are millionaires. 🥳 )


Taxing unrealized gains is moot.

- tank the stock market
- tank banking/credit industry
- tank the real estate market
- destroy Agriculture
- tank the economy

Also:
- impossible to calculate
- impossible to enforce
- would lose in Tax Court every time



WHY do they make it so hard? There are so many other easier/legal/actual ways to increase tax revenue and add even greater equity. (making ultra rich pay more)

In my opinion the only logical explanation for proposals like this is that they (DC) have no intention of raising taxes on the wealthy they just want to look like they are doing things because they know the general public are illiterate morons who will continue to vote along party lines if you give them a reason to.





PS: to anybody who wants examples of other things we could do with the tax code to bring in more revenue/make it even more “progressive” (in the tax system use of the word) just look back through this thread, @Jim14510 and I have given many examples. (and so have other people ITT) If Democrats and Republicans were actually serious about helping out lower/middle class Americans, while brining in even more tax revenue to actually pay for Government spending, they easily could. I need another coffee I’m grumpy now.

They could also start removing some of the insane loop holes and shitty tax code allowing people to not pay the existing rates. These new ideas just further punish people following the rules. Our tax code is so bad at this point moving the rates doesn’t really do much.

 

[God is a Husker]

They could also start removing some of the insane loop holes and shitty tax code allowing people to not pay the existing rates. These new ideas just further punish people following the rules. Our tax code is so bad at this point moving the rates doesn’t really do much.

thats the exact point I bring up all the time (especially with the Corp tax rate)


if we made the Corp tax rate 15%-20% BUT ended all the deductions it would generate a much higher tax revenue than if they raised the Corp tax rate to Euro levels (would also save the Corporations tons of money and therefore benefit the shareholders "bigly")



The US could also do the same thing with individual deductions after a certain amount.
Ex: Can't take deductions on income over $5,000,000 and after like $20 million losses don't carry over. It would bring in so much additional tax revenue and only effect like 0.2% of taxpayers.

 

[Jim14510]

In my opinion the only logical explanation for proposals like this is that they (DC) have no intention of raising taxes on the wealthy they just want to look like they are doing things because they know the general public are illiterate morons who will continue to vote along party lines if you give them a reason to.

 

[redzoner]

thats the exact point I bring up all the time (especially with the Corp tax rate)


if we made the Corp tax rate 15%-20% BUT ended all the deductions it would generate a much higher tax revenue than if they raised the Corp tax rate to Euro levels (would also save the Corporations tons of money and therefore benefit the shareholders "bigly")



The US could also do the same thing with individual deductions after a certain amount.
Ex: Can't take deductions on income over $5,000,000 and after like $20 million losses don't carry over. It would bring in so much additional tax revenue and only effect like 0.2% of taxpayers.

Agree with all of this.

I also think they need to take some of the middle class tax advantaged accounts and put some sort of cap on them. Like HSA and Roth IRA. There's no reason people should have billions of dollars in Roth IRAs that can't be taxed.

 

[jaihawk]

Agree with all of this.

I also think they need to take some of the middle class tax advantaged accounts and put some sort of cap on them. Like HSA and Roth IRA. There's no reason people should have billions of dollars in Roth IRAs that can't be taxed.

There already is an income restriction when it comes to Roth IRA contributions. If you're single and your Modified AGI is greater than $144k, you can't contribute. If you're married and your Modified AGI is greater than $214k, you can't contribute. Honestly, I'd like to see those thresholds increased. $214k for a married couple with kids definitely doesn't make you rich.

 

[redzoner]

There already is an income restriction when it comes to Roth IRA contributions. If you're single and your Modified AGI is greater than $144k, you can't contribute. If you're married and your Modified AGI is greater than $214k, you can't contribute. Honestly, I'd like to see those thresholds increased. $214k for a married couple with kids definitely doesn't make you rich.

I get the contribution side limits but I think there should be a cap on how much money you can hold total in those accounts. It can be something large like 50 million but it shouldn't allow an infinite amounts of funds to be held.

 

[jaihawk]

I get the contribution side limits but I think there should be a cap on how much money you can hold total in those accounts. It can be something large like 50 million but it shouldn't allow an infinite amounts of funds to be held.

Considering you can't contribute more than $6k/year to a Roth IRA, how in the world would you have $50 million in it? Even if someone was smart and started contributing at 21 until the age of 65, the most they could contribute is $264k.

 

[Jay Bilzerian]

Considering you can't contribute more than $6k/year to a Roth IRA, how in the world would you have $50 million in it? Even if someone was smart and started contributing at 21 until the age of 65, the most they could contribute is $264k.

Not exactly common, but there is at least one

Lord of the Roths: How Tech Mogul Peter Thiel Turned a Retirement Account for the Middle Class Into a $5 Billion Tax-Free Piggy Bank

Roth IRAs were intended to help average working Americans save, but IRS records show Thiel and other ultrawealthy investors have used them to amass vast untaxed fortunes.

www.propublica.org

 

[Kaladin]

Not exactly common, but there is at least one

Lord of the Roths: How Tech Mogul Peter Thiel Turned a Retirement Account for the Middle Class Into a $5 Billion Tax-Free Piggy Bank

Roth IRAs were intended to help average working Americans save, but IRS records show Thiel and other ultrawealthy investors have used them to amass vast untaxed fortunes.

www.propublica.org

are you related to dan bilzerian

 

[redzoner]

Not exactly common, but there is at least one

Lord of the Roths: How Tech Mogul Peter Thiel Turned a Retirement Account for the Middle Class Into a $5 Billion Tax-Free Piggy Bank

Roth IRAs were intended to help average working Americans save, but IRS records show Thiel and other ultrawealthy investors have used them to amass vast untaxed fortunes.

www.propublica.org

This is the problem I'm talking about. The more loopholes and unconstrained things we have the more they will be taken advantage of by corporate accountants. The common people are never going to have that much in a Roth IRA but the couple that do represent a big problem to our tax structure.

 

[Jay Bilzerian]

are you related to dan bilzerian

Thankfully no

 

[Red Dog]

Considering you can't contribute more than $6k/year to a Roth IRA, how in the world would you have $50 million in it? Even if someone was smart and started contributing at 21 until the age of 65, the most they could contribute is $264k.

If your investments do incredibly well that could be a reason. Also people contribute to 401ks, do a direct rollover to a traditional IRA, then convert to a Roth 401k since there is no income limit for Roth conversions. It’s a major loophole that is incredibly easy to exploit.

 

[KidsSeeGhosts]

Yeah, I would think it's b/c backdoor Roth

 

[Jim14510]

This is the problem I'm talking about. The more loopholes and unconstrained things we have the more they will be taken advantage of by corporate accountants. The common people are never going to have that much in a Roth IRA but the couple that do represent a big problem to our tax structure.

I get your point but let's be real. How often does a $2,000 investment turn into $50 bil in 3 years? Still can't access that money until 59 1/2 without paying penalty and tax on the earnings. This isn't exactly a widespread issue.

 

[Jim14510]

Yeah, I would think it's b/c backdoor Roth

More than likely. Those are the larger accounts. The more common back door Roth is when you're over the income limit. You contribute money into a traditional non deductible IRA. You then immediately convert that IRA into a Roth. Since there is no pretax money in the IRA none of the conversion is taxable. This only works if you don't have any other IRA accounts.

Let's assume you have 95k in pretax IRA's. You contribute 5k to a non deductible IRA. Then convert 5k to a Roth. 95% of that 5k is taxable or $4,750 of it.

Easy to avoid this issue too. Just roll your IRA accounts into your 401k/403b. 401k/403b money doesn't factor into this equation.

You used to be limited to 100k per year on Roth conversion. Obama got rid of the maximum amount iirc.

You also have to realize you're coming out of pocket with the tax amount. Any taxes withheld on the conversion would be considered early withdrawal. Have had many a financial advisors talk people into doing Roth conversions for them to find out at tax time that they owe a bunch of money they don't have.

Just go back to capping it at 50-100k.

 

[Faux Sean Callahan]

There already is an income restriction when it comes to Roth IRA contributions. If you're single and your Modified AGI is greater than $144k, you can't contribute. If you're married and your Modified AGI is greater than $214k, you can't contribute. Honestly, I'd like to see those thresholds increased. $214k for a married couple with kids definitely doesn't make you rich.

Those are more of guidelines at the end of the day.