this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
821 points (97.3% liked)

Work Reform

17046 readers
1910 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Arent they often paid in stock?

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Define pay such that it includes stocks, bonuses, rebates, real estate, food, clothing, transportation, or any other item that can be exchanged, borrowed against, or otherwise converted to cash money. When they find a loophole just close it.

The problem with this isn't the concept. It's getting politicians to implement it.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (4 children)

It’s a pretty good loophole though. A stocks value is considered an unrealized gain when you receive it but don’t sell it. My company gives me stock, but I don’t sell it. If I had to pay taxes on that, I’d be fucked. Maybe they could create some kind of untaxed minimum based on some index. And possibly even brackets.

But of course there’s a reason they like it this way.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Stocks are not a necessary piece of compensation for anyone. Besides, if you can borrow money from a bank using stocks as collateral then it is effectively a liquid asset that you absolutely should pay tax on. The simplest solution to that problem is to disallow stocks from being used as collateral.

Every loophole can be closed if we decide we want to. The ones that are still open were intentionally left open to benefit the rich.

[–] Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

Except where I live you do actually have to pay taxes on stock you receive as a bonus, if you don't have the cash on hand, you just liquidate part of the stocks.

[–] Poppa_Mo@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

I think if they handled it in such a way that you borrow against it in any fashion, what you borrow is taxed. Kind of stupid it isn't that way already, but here we are.

[–] ChristerMLB@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago

Yep, this is one of the reasons we need a tax on wealth. If you're wealthy enough you can also just borrow against your stocks at very low interest rates.