lawsuit claims

It's right in the title. So you claim it is true. I can also claim that you sell my personal data. Doesn't make it true.

Let that lawsuit play out, and wait for the verdict.

Mega, Filen

Some people downvote because others care about downvotes

I will honor all of this with by reading it.

Just for a first response to your second paragraph

Let’s say the stock does really well over the next 10 years, and it doubles in value, 100 at a time - at some point I (as an investor) will have paid 25% of that, so I’m virtually paying 1250 for that $2000. Cool, that’s what would’ve happened if I had sold.

You will have "paid" $250 after the ten years, not $1250. So if the stock tanks, as it can with the current system, nothing would change. The point though is, that you have not actually paid that $250 out of your pocket, the stock has just gone up by a total of 1000-250 instead of the whole 1000.

So in my eyes, the risk for you is exactly the same as it is now. You still gain $750 over 10 years, and the government still gets its $250 in taxes.

-- I will read the rest of your reply now, that's just my first thought. Thanks for taking your time to think this all through :)

Second thought: Yes, I think I get what you are trying to say.

• If the stock price rises in year 1, after the yearly tax cutoff it will have paid taxes. 1000 + 50 * 75% = 1037.50 [1050 with the current system]
• The stock tanks in year 2, losing 50% of its value, and ends at 518.75. There would be no taxes owed, because losses > profit. [525 with the current system]
• In year 3, the stock rises again, by 100% this time. Would end at 1037.50, but after the tax cutoff ends at 907.8125 [1050 with the current system]
• You decide to sell. With the new system, you get exactly 907.8125, as you already "paid" your tax. With the current system you get 1050-(1050-1000)*25% = 1037.50

-- this means the new system would have to do something during loss-years. yes, I see that now

Third thought: This makes me feel like there should be a loss-counter that could be carried over the years. This counter would have to be held for every single share, so that you would start "paying taxes" or lowering the stock price again only after you were at +- 0 again.

So maybe a few examples, because I won't pretend to know every little aspect of the stock market myself:

1. You buy 1 share of company X at $1000. Unless this company X is currently offering new shares, you buy this single share directly from someone else. The person on the other end of this trade would then have to pay e.g. 25% of their gains over the year so far (that's the capital gains tax in Germany).

2. Company X's business is going great, and the stock price goes up to $1050 over the next year, and up to $1100 over the second year. You decide to sell your one share again, at this price, so you get $100 in profit. Right now, you would then pay $25 to the government. That's $25 over 2 years. With the change, you would owe the government ($1050 - $1000) * 25% = $12.50 after the first year of holding your one share. It would be treated as if you would have sold your share after one year, paid your tax, and then re-bought the same share right away. Where does this money come from and how do you pay your owed taxes? The price of this stock would be set to $1000 + ($1050 - $1000) * 75% = $1037.50, and the $12.50 in profits of every share in circulation would be paid directly to the government (your government, wherever you pay your taxes). This way you already paid your taxes. So the stock gets to "keep" 75% of the profits it has made over the year. The stock is now at $1037.50, and again goes up by $50 over the second year. Same as above, price is reset to accommodate for profit taxes. After two years, the stock would have paid a total of $25 for every share, and would be set at ($1037.50 + $50 * 75%) = ($1037.50 + $37.50) = $1075.

3. If you decide to sell your share after 1.5 years, because you want to avoid the second year's reset, you pay no taxes after the first year (because the stock would just be valued for 75% of profits), and you just pay 25% of whatever profits the stock made in the last six months. Maybe the price at that point in time is at $1060, so you "pay" ($1060.00 - $1037.50) * 25% = $5.625 in taxes for this trade, and get to keep $16.875 in profits for the six months. I wrote "pay taxes", because the government would not see a single cent from that because of the other side of that trade:

4. Maybe you are the other person, who buys that one share at some point during the year for $1060. However, what you are really paying is only $1600 - $5.625 = $1054.375, because that's what this stock would be worth right now after taxes. By the end of the year the stock has climbed to $1087.50, but is reset to $1075. You sell it again at $1075. $1075 - $1075 = $0, so you pay no more taxes to sell it. Your profit over these six months is ($1075 - $1054.375) = $20.625. To compare: Right now, you would have paid $1060 for the share, the price would have gone up to $1087.50, and you would have paid ($1087.50 - $1060) * 25% = $6.875 in taxes, and thus would have made ($1087.50 - $1060) * 75% = $20.625 in profits, exactly the same.

5. If people value company X less after a year, and the stock goes down, nothing would change in comparison to what happens right now.

To sum it all up: Every year, each stock would be forced to realize profits and pay taxes that way.

Just spitballing here.

As you said, right now, you only pay taxes on profits at the time stocks are sold. Which means I could gather billions in "wealth" and never cash in, thus never pay a single dollar in taxes.

Suppose we would change how taxes are paid on stock profits. What if you had to pay taxes on yearly profits every year? This way, you can cash out at any time, because the tax is already paid. It would work just like regular income tax. Deductions and losses on the market would still apply.

a huge chunk, most likely the vast majority, of Electron apps [...] are just wrapped web sites

[citation needed]

Don't forget that chrome is also censoring saved bookmarks and purging bookmarks to URLs that are on their naughty list - right now that's mostly piracy related things, but the precedence is set.

Your comment is a prime example of FUD.

For context, see https://lemmy.one/comment/2495139

TL;DR: Google is moderating public facing lists of links. Compare it to Lemmy moderators deleting illegal content in their communities.

You can still hate Google all you want, but please, don't just read the headlines.

while the usual stuff on Windows is pretty useless

"useless" or "useful" to you. That's my point. Someone who does not have any use for Libreoffice will get just as annoyed as you would get with a pre-linked Office-Suite.

When I last installed Windows I had to google where do download [...] On Linux most came preinstalled

You can't have it both ways.

On one day, you complain about all the so called "bloatware" that's preinstalled on Windows (more "pre-linked" and easily installed, and these "links" are easily deleted).

The next day, you complain that the specific subset of software you want to use is not preinstalled on Windows.

Lastly, the way you go about finding where to get your software, that's more of a philosophical question. Do I want someone else to curate a list of available software, or do I want to visit the publisher's website and get it directly from the source?

I did just that just yesterday/today. Built a new PC from scratch, added the SSD with Windows from the old PC, booted up, and it worked just fine. I didn't even need to reinstall the graphics driver.

Their browser says incognito mode offers protections that their website then runs roughshod over.

That's the point of my comment. I won't say "don't sue Google", I'll say "sue Google, but actually read what it says when you open an incognito window". Offers protections against other people who use this device. And that's it.

I think we might agree on the last part, but that's exactly the point of my comment. If these people are suing Google for privacy invasion tactics, all the more power to them.

But the headline infers the opposite: "lawsuit over ‘incognito mode’ tracking". This reads like the plaintiffs don't understand what this "incognito mode" actually does.

Am I reading this right? As far as I can see, the complaint seems to be that Google would be "tracking" people even if they browse in any browser's incognito mode.

Of course they do. If I open a private window in Firefox, and then login to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, or any other website, these websites can try to track me. How would any browser control what happens or doesn't happen on the server side of things?

These plaintiffs would be better off sueing the companies of these websites for ignoring privacy laws and continuing to add tracking scripts to their sites.

Yes, there are browsers that try to send as little personal information as possible, like the Tor Browser, but even that one can't disable a Facebook server's internal logging data - how could it? All modern browsers make it quite clear what their respective incognito mode does - and what it doesn't do.

Yes, you can always rent one when you need it.

If you need to tow something that heavy once a year, you are not buying a car for that.

> "A lot of people"

Translation: "no one, it was me"

Ich wundere mich wirklich über dieses Zitat aus dem Artikel Bilderbuch

„Die Sonne hat etwas geblendet, [...]“

Das heißt, wenn die Sonne etwas blendet, brettere ich munter weiter ins Ungewisse?

right on que!

Also, pleeeaaase, someone find me that ancient image macro of a boy, maybe he had a moustache, or maybe it was drawn on, he was raising an eyebrow, and the only caption on it was "que?". I've been searching for that forever.