650
submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Aurix@lemmy.world 164 points 2 years ago

Bruh, if you had invested your school lunch money instead of literally eating it and thus draining it down the toilet, you would have been a millionaire by now. Subscribe for more of my finance tips for just $20 a month.

[-] BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee 40 points 2 years ago

i was so fucking dumb at 8 years old. instead of buying a house for renting for passive income i bought a 5 dollar guitar hero rock the 80s game on ps2

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

Wait, what did you do with the small million dollar loan from your parents?

[-] Patches@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

Loan? I was supposed to pay that back?

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Hookers and blow, my friend. What else is there?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WeeSheep@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

You had lunch money? I had enough to cover 1 small milk carton a week. I had hunger and no investments.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 99 points 2 years ago
[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 83 points 2 years ago

If you mean a small tax per share when purchased then that would be a great idea. Make high frequency trading, that contributes zero to society, unprofitable. It wouldn't hurt household investors as the tax would be small but it would hurt the assholes who manipulate prices through trading back and forth.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

High frequency trading is fully automated insider trading done in broad daylight, but nothing gets done about it because most people don't understand what it is. It shouldn't be taxed; it should be illegal.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

It's a long and convoluted route from that to their 401ks not bring as plump as they could be. Indirect robbery of thousands is more palatable than being mugged for a few dollars.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I wish I remembered the name of it but there was a really interesting documentary/video about how crazy the rapid trading got, to the point that companies were trying to install systems as close as physically possible to the physical location of the NASDAQ so their requests would have less "travel" time and show up before anyone else.

Absolute insanity...

[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah. Didn't the feds have to regulate that so that it was an equal playing field for transaction latency?

[-] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago

We’re not asking for 5 minute intervals. Just 1-2 second intervals would stop that automated stuff, or at least diminish it significantly. How about setting it to how long it takes light to go around the world twice +1 second?

[-] Patches@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

How about abolishing the system altogether?

It clearly isn't working for real people.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

Thats a great idea.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago

Abolishing the stock market in general would be nice, or at least moving towards that direction gradually. The wealthy don't typically get their money from great trading, but parking their money and letting it grow.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Or, require a stock buyer to hold that stock for 365 days before they can sell it. Then tax the sale.

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago

Well of course they do. That's the whole point of the legal scam of investing. If it benefits regular people it wouldn't exist.

[-] SoupBrick@yiffit.net 44 points 2 years ago

Don't worry, it'll trickle down.... Annny day now.

[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

I can already feel it trickle on me! No wait, that‘s asbestos.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Just give it 30 years or so, and we'll be swimming in that sweet sweet mesothelioma money.

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

It's ok though because they sprayed it down with urine first.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago

This is an important thing to note when someone claims that you should be eager about stock market performance because of your [comparative handful of] shares in your retirement account. Accounts such as the 401k were probably devised to tie up regular people's money into the stock market, injecting more money into it and making it seem more important (and thus worth bailing out).

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 20 points 2 years ago

They were devised to get rid of pensions so companies didn't need to care for their employees, they could just have the option to match input, but retirement was made to be 100% on us.

More bullshit to benefit corporations, but to be honest there are so many scumbags out there and so many pension plans that were stolen from, I don't know how to feel about it.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

It was also devised so that when a crash occurs, the lower classes get wiped out, the rich still have piles of cash, and they get to buy up everything at fractions of a penny on the dollar.

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You know exactly how to feel about it. Douchebag MBA's who think they're Masters of the Universe gamble with other people's retirement money. And all those sweet sweet fees...

We should invest in guillotines.

[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Accounts such as the 401k were probably devised to tie up regular people’s money into the stock market

Aren't pensions also tied up in the stock market. Yes there's a difference of who manages and how the contributions are made, but both plans put the security of your retirement in the market in some capacity, right?

[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Pensions also allocate some funds in stocks, but overall they invest conservatively. By default, most 401k funds are set to a target retirement date fund and early on those are mostly stocks. These funds also often have significant annual fees. Instead of a single large fund managed conservatively, you have many individual funds that are managed all over the place. The common advice is to invest more aggressively when you're younger, there has also been a huge push toward ETFs which are their own tangled mess and have a potential for trouble in the future, but that's a different topic.

[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Are the fees of target funds usually that significant? Vanguard Target Funds have an expense ratio of 0.08%. They say the average comparative fund is 0.44%, which is a bit high for my liking, but not terribel compared to other managed funds. https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vfifx#performance-fees

[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Vanguard is good with fees. That 0.44% is an average so there are also funds that charge more. I think fees have come down as 1) more attention was brought to them 2) Such funds became more computerized and straightforward to manage. Still, a 0.44% average fee each year is a significant chunk of change.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 years ago

Billionaires shouldn't exist.

[-] pensivepangolin@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

No no you guys all don’t understand that this is a good thing because… (let me check my notes…) ….uh…hm…derrr…communism.

[-] sleepdrifter@startrek.website 11 points 2 years ago

My wife and I constantly lament how we were born a few decades too late. For everything

[-] Patches@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

Born too late to explore the world, born too early to explore space. Born just in time to explore Dank memes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Illegal_Prime@dmv.social 11 points 2 years ago

One thing the article doesn’t make super clear to me is if that figure includes investment funds and whatnot, and to what degree. It sounds like it might but elaborated very little beyond a vague statistic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 10 points 2 years ago

No shit. If someone does not have money they don't need then they can not buy stocks or any investment.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] arc@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago

Cause and effect

[-] echo@lemmings.world 8 points 2 years ago

Is this really a new thing? Haven't the rich always been the stock-holders?

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Gasoline is relatively cheap.

Just saying...

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Tax stock over 100,000 shares 1% per current price, per stock, per quarter.

Guillotine anyone who tries to buy a yacht or private jet.

[-] comfydecal@infosec.pub 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So if everyone in the US stops buying publically traded companies, it would bankrupt the top 10%?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Only if you're including the top 10%. The vast majority of retail investing makes little difference even when combined, in comparison to institutional investing.

[-] blady_blah@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I don't think it's good to have such wealth inequality, but I do this general investment into the stock market should be encouraged.

401ks are so much better than pensions as a retirement vehicle. Better return on investment and more financial separation from the company I work for. I never worry about someone raiding the pension fund or a company going bankrupt, and I've received much better return on investments than the numbers you hear from pension funds! That's not even considering 401k matching......

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
650 points (100.0% liked)

News

36063 readers
2931 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS