Chronic Luigi Insufficiency.

I believe the politically correct term is “Women”. They tend to bitch a lot when you call them “birds”.

Exactly. A TUI is not a replacement for a GUI where human interaction is essential to the process.

But, very few computer processes require direct human input. The overwhelming majority of individual operations are performed silently in the background. The presence of a TUI in an image modification program allows for certain operations to be performed automatically, in the background, without a human ever needing to be involved. I actually needed to do this, to add what was basically a watermark and a date stamp to a PDF document via an image modification program. Repeated 80-120 times a day, 6 days a week. A TUI allows for the tying together of a half dozen simple operations into a functional system.

TUI. Text User Interface. Command line. Terminal. You interact with the application via the keyboard, rather than a mouse, touchscreen, trackpad, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “No”.

Say you are taxed 10% on the value of all the stocks you own, this means you have to sell 10% of your stocks annually,

Myth.

You can transfer the stocks themselves to the IRS, and leave the IRS with the responsibility for liquidating them. We can require the IRS to look at the total traded volume of any issue they acquire, and prohibit them from selling more than 1% of that volume in the same time period. Liquidated shares will comprise no more than 1%; those shares will not significantly affect the market value of the issue.

My personal solution - outlaw stocks, bonds and loans for fucks sake.

“Stock” is what the ownership interest is distributed among multiple people. When two people equally build a business together, they each hold a “share” of that business’s “stock”. Banning “stocks” means banning every type of joint ownership, which is every type of business except “sole proprietorship” and “government enterprise”. Banning stocks is only feasible in a completely centralized economy.

Banning Bonds and Loans is even less feasible, and results in even more absurdities. Taken to extremes, your Amazon driver would have to collect payment at time of delivery, not at time of order. Payment before delivery could be considered a type of loan. Likewise, a business’s order to a vendor for supplies would have to be paid at time of delivery. Any other time would be considered a “loan” one way or another.

It’s already available and parents are not utilizing it.

The parents have determined that it’s not needed. They’ve determined that trying to strictly regulate exactly what Little Johnny can and can’t see online does him far more harm than porn ever could. This hyper-authoritarian nonsense needs to die in a fire.

Maybe I’m an idiot, but I am just not understanding the ramifications of your argument.

Yes, Stocks are property. They are a specific type of property: “intangible personal property”.

That type of property is not currently taxed. I am describing a method in which that type of property will be taxed.

What does your distinction bring to the discussion?

No, I can’t “prove” to you that a “beneficial” institution would not survive

I don’t believe I asked you to prove it. I asked for examples of such institutions. When you say “institutions”, the first thing that springs to my mind are corporate landlords taking investor dollars to buy up residential properties, and artificially inflate housing prices. That is an example of an “institution” that is contributing to the problem. That institution exists primarily to benefit the interests of corporate entities and ultra-high net worth individuals. That is an institution that should not survive in its current form.

Either way, it’d miss the point that there are in fact institutions that do good in the world that are built on the current systems and need some means of transitioning or surviving your radical change.

Name some. You’re assuming I’m either going to destroy such institutions, or that I will need some sort of “exception” in order for them to continue operating. I don’t think this is likely. I think that such institutions would fall well within this plan. I think they could, for example, structure their portfolios to pass the security tax obligation through to the natural-person shareholders who own and control them.

For example, that abusive REIT I mentioned above is currently under the control of Problem Class shareholders. That problem class is using that control to transfer wealth from the working class to the problem class. When the Problem Class shareholders withdraw, this REIT comes under the control of Working-Class Shareholders; the kind of people who are harmed by that exploitative behavior.

Do you know how you make progress? You gain a deep understanding of how things work

Which is why I’m asking for examples. What harm do you think is going to arise from driving the Problem Class out of these nebulous “institutions”?

I see. How does that particular distinction affect this discussion?

Real Estate property taxes are assessed at the county/parish level, and apply only to land and improvements on that land. Securities would not be considered “real property”. They are generally considered intangible personal property, which is not currently taxed. Further, the tax I am describing would be assessed at the federal level.

We certainly do need a way of distinguishing between existing real estate taxes and the proposed securities tax, even if the rates for the two taxes are identical.

Parent comment refers to “dramatically decreasing the tax rate”, but does not describe what tax rate they are decreasing. Parent comment crunches some numbers in which they assume a 3% tax rate, not a 1.1% tax rate comparable to real property taxes you describe.

They did not indicate what tax rate they meant when they said it would need to be decreased. They certainly aren’t referring to a real property tax rate when they suggest a decrease. I believe they were referring to either Federal Income Tax or Federal Capital Gains tax, which are approximately 25 to 50 times higher than the tax I was considering. Given the considerable discrepancy between what I meant and what they heard, I felt it important to indicate that this tax would be entirely separate from the existing taxes, and that it would be enacted for an entirely separate purpose.

I didn’t (initially) define a proposed securities tax rate, but I did provided context for calculating one:

"stocks, bonds, real estate, and other financial assets (the “ownership of the means of production”) should only be valuable to the working classes

I would tax those securities held by corporate interests and the obscenely rich at a rate equal to or greater than their expected return on investment, so that the benefits of securities ownership convey primarily to working class investors. From Parent Comment’s ROI (5%) and inflation (3%) numbers, the context I provided would allow for at most a 2% securities tax rate.

The securities tax rate I had in mind was 1%.

What?

You’re advocating for maintaining status quo “institutions”. I’m advocating improvement. You’re advocating regression. I’m advocating progress.

Your criticism here makes your stance seem wildly inconsistent.

I think you need to explain what you mean by “institutions” when you suggest that I will be destroying them.

The “institutions” I believe will be destroyed by a securities tax are overtly harmful and should be destroyed. Can you provide me an example of a beneficial “institution” that would not survive?

All you have to do is tax them when they use the assets as collateral,

If you tax loans backed by collateral, the banks will just change their lending policies on unsecured personal loans. No collateral = no tax on the use of that collateral. The method of taxation you are suggesting is trivial to evade.

That’s significantly more complicated for no real benefit.

It is more complicated, but the benefit is immense. The benefit is that Shareholding becomes much less valuable to the oligarch Problem Class, and much more valuable to the Working Class. Company ownership and control is driven toward workers. Working Class shareholders become the predominant voice in determining company policy. Profit extraction goes to Working Shareholders rather than the Problem Class.

It actually carries a much higher risk for the IRS as the securities are volital.

Describe that risk. Remember: The IRS is not owed dollars. They are only owed the shares. The dollar value of those shares is entirely irrelevant.

you’d have to dramatically decrease the tax rate

This is a wealth tax, not an income tax. We don’t currently have a wealth tax to decrease; we would be establishing a new one. I would propose 1% per year.

My investments

Are you a natural person? Is your portfolio less than $10,000,000 in value?

If you answered “yes” to both questions, nothing changes for you. This only applies to corporate entities and ultra-high-net-worth individuals.

The issue is you’re still incentivizing people to put money into higher returning investments rather than investing in more stable and assets, like bonds.

The only reason that higher returning investments are a problem is because they are used as a vehicle to drive wealth to the (ultra-)wealthy. When the wealthy are charged a high premium for these investments, that reason stops being a reason.

Unless you’re lowering the tax rate as I suggested, you’d have to add a lot of exceptions to not destroy most of the world’s established institutions

The established institutions in question are the ones creating the systemic problems. I see no compelling reason to maintain the institutions responsible. I see no compelling need for “a lot of exceptions”. Destroy them. To minimize disruption, we could phase it in over time. Perhaps starting with a $1 billion portfolio exemption and decreasing it to $10 million over the course of a decade.

This would have the ultra-wealthy converting their financial assets to tangible assets; they would be buying up personal property (produced by workers) hand over fist, while the working class would be buying up those liquidated shares from the IRS at a similar rate. Ownership interest in these companies would be rapidly conveyed away from the Problem Class to the Working Class.

Tax wealth.

Agreed.

I don’t think we even need to tax all wealth. We need to specifically tax registered securities. Financial assets.

Economically, it isn’t a problem for a rich person to buy a yacht or a plane: Those assets were produced by workers; they are maintained by workers. The purchase of tangible assets means paychecks for the workers producing those assets. Economically, we shouldn’t be discouraging the purchase of personal property assets.

The value the ultra-wealthy are capturing is the ownership of companies. The value of those companies is generated by workers, but is transferred to the ultra-wealthy. The workers are compensated with cash, rather than ownership interest.

What we need to do is make those securities more expensive for the ultra-wealthy to hold, and cheaper for the workers to hold. We need a progressive tax on securities, payable in shares of the security, rather than the dollar value of those securities.

Under that plan, the maximum net income would come from a gross income of 50x minimum wage. Above that, taxes rise faster than pay.

Any minimum raise hike would automatically cut income tax rates across the board.

What would likely happen is the same thing that happened when we had a 91% top-tier tax rate: People with gross earnings above that rate would figure out how to turn everything they bought into a deductible business expense, and spend until they were under the line. Which isn’t really a problem, IMO, as that spending turns into worker compensation, rather than a rich-person’s stock portfolio.

Under this plan, executive compensation would still come primarily in the form of stock rather than pay. That’s already a problem, and this would compound it. Stock needs to be easy and cheap for the working class. It needs to be supremely expensive for the ultra rich to acquire and hold. We need cap gains taxes that start lower but progress much faster and higher than income taxes.

You should have to pay on the yearly difference in value, and if that means you have to sell some to pay the tax then you should just get over it.

There’s a much better way.

Don’t tax the dollar value of the shares. Tax the shares themselves. Don’t demand the liquidation of the shares to pay the dollar value of the tax. Instead, just tax the shares themselves: confiscate the same percentage of the shares held, then have the IRS liquidate the confiscated shares slowly over time.

We can exempt $10 million from the portfolio of any natural person, then tax proportionately from every issue in that portfolio. No exemptions for artificial, corporate entities.

Basically, stocks, bonds, real estate, and other financial assets (the “ownership of the means of production”) should only be valuable to the working classes.

Don’t try to tax the dollar value of the securities. Enact a wealth tax of the securities themselves. Transfer shares of the security to the IRS, to be liquidated slowly over time. Non-liquid securities would be held much like a lien.

“If I do attend, I get killed.

I think he meant that literally.