Stocks & Investing

[Thestatusquo]

I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has made enough money from investing that the tax from sale would be "thousands."

Put that in perspective. It means she's made at least 10 grand or so on her investment. If the tax is so burdensome to her, she can easily sell out to pay for it, but paying taxes on profit isn't a hardship. It's just what happens when you make money. There is no difference between this and the tax that comes out of a paycheck.

[Thestatusquo]

I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has made enough money from investing that the tax from sale would be "thousands."

Put that in perspective. It means she's made at least 10 grand or so on her investment. If the tax is so burdensome to her, she can easily sell out to pay for it, but paying taxes on profit isn't a hardship. It's just what happens when you make money. There is no difference between this and the tax that comes out of a paycheck.

It's a timing issue. Buying stock over the course of 60 years to slowly cash out to meet your living expenses keeps your taxes at a manageable level.

An inversion where the government determines that the old stock you had is now gone and you made a large profit (which is on paper, not in cash) which you must pay taxes for is not the same as determining how and when to sell your stock and how you pay taxes on it.

For the paycheck example, if the government started taking 80% of your check and said "Hey, we will be applying this to your 2015 taxes, so just deal with it", you'd be in the same boat. Sure, you'd have more money in the future, but you probably plan your now-budget based on money you expect to have next week, not next year.

No, it would be like if the government took money out of your paycheck for some future benefit you might have. You know. Like they already do for social security and medicaid.

It's not a timing issue. The fact that you're able to make money and not pay taxes is something I don't support, and I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make with "in paper vs in cash." There's no other part of the tax code that makes this distinction. If you win a car, you have to pay taxes on that. If you buy a house and it grows in value, you have to pay taxes on that. As a general rule, investors are under taxed, not the other way around, and, if we return to the point at hand in order for those tax burdens to actually be detrimental, you have to have made literally tens of thousands of dollars. I feel no sympathy. None at all. Cash out if you can't handle it, but I'm pretty sure if you've got those kinds of investments just in PROFITS and you can't afford to pay a few thousand bucks in taxes then you're either a) an idiot who doesn't know that they need liquid capital or b) someone who doesn't know how to diversify their investments.

Suck it up, homie. Cry some more about netting 10000k in profit. No one likes paying taxes, but the harsh reality is that you have to, and investors get out of it more than literally any other group in society other than corporations.

[Thestatusquo]

So what you're saying is she made a lot of money? And had to pay taxes on it?

Huh.

[Thestatusquo]

Yes. People at the top of the bracket should be taxed more. That's what's known as a progressive tax system, and it is one of the greatest achievements of our economic society.

Using my house example, if you buy a house for 100,000 and in 5 years that house is worth 500,000 do you think you should be paying property taxes on 100,000k or 500,000k?

[Thestatusquo]

Stockholders are those who own stake in the company, I.E. they have actual certificates of stock which entitle them to whatever percent ownership of the company that stock is.

Investors are people who have lended capital to the firm. Stock offerings are one of the ways in which companies can gain raise capitol, so all stockholders are investors, but not all investors are stockholders because not all capital infusions come with a share of the company.

It makes sense that the company would care more about stockholders, since the company is owned by stockholders. Though, they should probably care about other kinds of investors as well because they might want to raise capital at a later date and need more investment but don't want to do any more stock offerings.

[Thestatusquo]

What your describing sounds like you are a "customer" and not an investor at all. Just because the market value of the goods you bought has raised doesn't make you an investor.

It's sort of a weird model you're describing. I don't understand what goods you're talking about, to be honest, unless it IS a time share,

the "companies only care about their shareholders not customers" is a pretty common complaint that is caused by the publicly traded model imo.

[Thestatusquo]

You make your living off of a timeshare? How do I do that? :-/