Not attacking you, but I'm so tired of this:
"...who has a duty to shareholders to, you know, not pay more taxes than they have to..."
Let's make shareholders rich. It'll all trickle down from there...
"...who has a duty to shareholders to, you know, not pay more taxes than they have to..."
Let's make shareholders rich. It'll all trickle down from there...
This sounds like a strawman because GP wasn't making any claims about whether it's bad or not. Moreover, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that each individual tax payer to pay as little tax as possible. eg. are you going to claim all tax eligible tax credits/deductions on this year's returns?
Are you paying more taxes than you are required to?
I think you're misreading my comment. It wasn't meant to shame buffet/gates for not paying more taxes, it was to point out that even they are going to act in their self interest in terms of paying taxes. ie. they won't pay more taxes than they need do.
It kept dropping since I started and maybe one day it'll rise but I just enjoy taking some sort of ownership of my own work.
You always want to tax shareholders when a company gets popular in the media but it's hard to reimburse shareholders when the company goes down...
Companies (and people), one way or another, will always have to be expected to be greedy. This is why i'm pro-capitalism and pro-government. We can't hope for corporations to _not_ be greedy just because it's "possible". We have to expect/assume they are, and act accordingly.
Just like we can't give government entities absolute power. Checks and balances are needed in all of this. Reality is messy.
Do you see another way?
EDIT: sure - downvote me all you want. The question is still around.
If you spend 50% of your income every year and stick the rest into the stock market and get 6% or so after inflation, you can sustain your spending without working after about twelve years.
If you spend 90% of your income every year and stick the rest into the stock market and get 6% or so after inflation, you can sustain your spending without working after about forty years.
It's all to say that being a shareholder matters in a hugely different way depending on your income. The disparity is worse when you look at how you can sustain higher volatility once you're already wealthy.
You're asking why can't people just be shareholders, but I think you're asking why it isn't enough that everyone can be shareholders. The reason is that being a shareholder only matters for those already making a ton.
There are more categories than the ultra rich and the incredibly poor. Stop that.
A lot of people can save 10-20% in stocks (such as via index funds.) A lot of people would rather not do this and still complain and point sticks at "the rich."
What can you do?
"The reason is that being a shareholder only matters for those already making a ton."
Is simply wrong and nonsensical. I don't make a ton, I am not ultra rich, it matters a lot to me to be a shareholder. It matters because that way I get to make money when "they" do.
Making $50k and spending $45k versus making $90k and spending $45k.
"Getting rich via investment depends on having income above a threshold which is set by the cost of living."
It's just not necessary to talk about getting rich. Getting rich is not relevant in this context. You made claims that are blatantly false that are part of the ever tiresome either rich or poor-dichotomy.
Most people can save money and invest that money in a way that makes them shareholders.