Also, if you put $1K into the account and take out $1K, there is no tax. There is only tax if you sell stuff and make a profit.
What it sounds like you're suggesting is a 1031 like-kind exchange for stocks. I understand the point, but then you end up with a black hole of money that no one wants to take out for fear of huge taxes.
It is less painful to take it in small chunks than all at once.
Also consider that it IS done that way, annually (sort of). If you have $5,000 in stock profits and $2,000 in stock losses, you're only taxed on the $3K profit.
But no politician will agree to this because it'll be seen as a "tax cut for the wealthy" and every politician who pursues this agenda will be hammered in the next election.
Of course, because most people are morons who have no interest in actually understanding anything, they would rather have a gut emotional reaction and think what they are told to think.
Harsh, but more true than I care to admit. I used to be one of them until I opened my eyes and noticed how much I "thought" was not correct.
---
If I were President, I'd drop the corportate tax rate to zero, companies don't pay taxes, people do. I would however raise taxes on the rich and all income would be taxed at the same amount.
It is a crime against humanity that labor is taxed up to 40% yet passive income earned by doing nothing is taxed at half that rate.
Your labor shouldn't be taxed any higher than a banker's passive income.
Well, we managed to be fairly effective on ozone and acid rain - so there are at least a few counter examples of this type of thing working without threat of war. I suspect that the same sorts of trade and ecconomic sticks and carrots we used for that might also be workable - but finding the will to do anything in any one spot is a challenge.
While you are correct, those are different things...
The Ozone problem was easily solved because a ready replacement was at hand.
If it had not been, what would we have done? Turned off all the air conditioners? Not likely.:)
The problem is that we have to stop burning coal, oil, and natural gas, and we need to stop burning 80% of it within 35 years. That doesn't strike me as possible.
False equivalence much? You're comparing apples and oranges assuming they are the same thing.
NOT paying taxes is illegal.
NOT upgrading is legal.
I have a longer view than the next 5 minutes, unlike some kids these days...
It will, sooner or later, become illegal to connect an unpatched device to the Internet.
It will be for reasons of security, for the same reason it is illegal to drive a car with an emission defeat device. Just because you can physically do it doesn't mean it will be allowed.
That day is coming sooner than you probably think.
At some level what you are saying is correct - moving to non-carbon sources will be more "expensive" at the simplest level of accounting. But at another level it is completely wrong, since the "cheaper" sources have all sorts of externalities that are REAL costs, they are just shifted to other people or other accounting lines. In this particular case, one of the reason the "something" costs less is that the purcase price does not reflect all the costs that are being paid for that thing. What we can hopefully someday do it to make the prices paid by the purchaser more in line with the actual total costs we all pay for the items.
You are correct, assuming that everyone agrees on the external costs and that everyone sees the same costs on the same line of the balance sheet. I don't know if you have noticed (sarcasm intended) or not, but a whole lot of people don't agree on those external costs.
Also worth keeping in mind that is to a lot of people, those external costs are invisible, they aren't paid today, so you're adding them in. They may have always existed, but as far as John and Jane Q. Public are concerned, they are new costs. They will not be happy if someone else tells them they must now pay them. Unhappy people demand their politicians make the problem go away.
If Bob's House of Chips sells lots of bags of chips, but doesn't provide enough trash cans and/or people who take the bags away toss them on the ground a few blocks away - someone besides Bob is paying to clean up the mess. The whole community is paying those costs, while Bob and his customers are the ones who should be shouldering the majority of them. Imposing a cleanup-fee on companies like Bob can be a way to make the price of Bob's bags-o-chips properly reflect the actual total cost of the product, and can make Mary's House of Brownies comparitively less expensive, even though Bob's material and production costs might be lower than Mary's, since her product gets eaten completely and doesn't generate any littering issues.
You of course sum up the problem perfectly... but that problem is easy to understand and most reasonable people would go along with that. But Bob's House of Chips isn't polluting Whereeverstan (random nation that isn't near Bob) on the other side of the planet, and that is where the idea falls apart.
More to the point, if Whereeverstan wants to keep polluting, what does Bob's community do about it? There is this funny little thing called Sovereignty. You can ask nicely, you can apply various types of pressure, but at the end of the day, the only way to MAKE Whereverstand stop polluting is to go to war and use violence.
I fully understand that a handful of nations are serious about doing something about the problem. The issue is that it doesn't actually take THAT many nations to NOT do something to make all those other efforts pointless. If Europe stops burning coal, natural gas, and oil completely, it will just reduce demand, and thus price, for those items. That means a few other nations will have a financial incentive to continue burning them. Like the United States.
Even if the US and China were to cut our CO2 output by half (not at all likely to happen any time soon, but lets pretend), it still wouldn't be enough. But it WOULD be enough to crush our economy and harm the standard of living of a billion people.
Thus we come to the problem of the cure being worse than the disease, while not really fixing the disease. Some people would rather die from cancer than go through cancer treatment. Some people would rather accept climate change rather than pay the price of change. Telling them they are wrong won't change their mind. And that is the real problem you face in trying to solve this.
I've become convinced that Climate Change is the biggest challenge that mankind has yet faced in our history, after the threat of nuclear annihil
Oh, also essentially brand new since you can still buy newly manufactured PCs with Windows 8.1 pre-installed (through October).
Most of those are older models that simply haven't been updated yet...
And considering that they currently get a free upgrade to Windows 10, you can hardly complain...
In any case, your entire point is meaningless, Windows 8.1 is still mainstream supported with product and feature updates. It is Windows 7 and Windows 8.0 that are out of date.
You're welcome to that opinion, but I disagree... There isn't anything from 7 that I miss in 10...
Two days ago I had to setup Windows 7 on a computer and it did nothing but remind me why all my computers now run Windows 10. It is superior in every way.
And I don't care if Microsoft needs money.
Of course you don't, nor should you... but it was an answer to the point of "who cares if Microsoft needs money". Clearly they care, so they'll run their business that way.
Expecting anything else is just foolish.
Now if they had a useful product then maybe I would consider bumping them ahead in line.
First, Windows 10 is free right now, so you can hardly claim cost is an issue. After July 29 that will no longer be true, but if you skipped the upgrade because you're stubborn, then that is just your fault.
Second, if you like Windows 7, then you're free to keep using it, just keep in mind that it runs out of support in 2020 and it is no longer getting feature updates. If you're ok with that, then more power to you...
Essentially brand new because it's only 3 years old.
In computer terms, 3 years isn't "new" at all...
Even a 3 year old car is considered new, though not brand new. Anyone replacing a car in 3 years is too fashion conscience most likely.
Nope, you couldn't be more wrong...
I replaced my 2012 SUV with the 2015 model because the 2015 model has auto-emergency braking, lane departure warning, cross traffic alert, etc...
The 2012 version didn't have any of that and those are pure safety features.
Replacing an OS in only 3 years is something silly, like getting a new iphone just because there is one.
A 3 year old iPhone is quite different to the new one. That would be the first iPhone 5, and the iPhone 6s is quite different to the iPhone 5 in features and size.
Windows 7 has been in productive service (not limping along) for 6 years.
Windows 7 is showing its age now... it was wonderful when it came out, but it becomes obvious when you switch between 7 and 10 how much has changed.
Yes, MS could technically just offer service packs to include the features in 7 that exist in 10, but again, that isn't how this works. You aren't paying them a yearly fee to support that.
If Windows ever becomes a "service" rather than a "product", then you may well see that feature.
XP is still in service many places and is perfectly fine for many things, and it's been around for 14 years.
Not in general use however. Sure, it runs specific programs on specific machines that don't have to be connected to anything, but it long since doesn't belong on a general desktop computer.
Why replace the OS when it's perfectly fine, has no problems, runs all the software you want to run on it, and will be supported until 2023?
No one says you have to, but why keep the OS when the new version is better, runs all the software you want to run on it, and will be supported even longer, and better yet, it is FREE!
Yes it is, however are you aware of Windows 7 support by Microsoft actually expired on January 13, 2015 and unless you have extended support which expires January 14, 2020 you are effectively running on an unsupported operating system.
You are mistaken...
Microsoft ended mainstream support, which simply means no new product features...
EVERYONE gets extended support for bug fixes and security updates until 2020.
Slashdot Mirror
That is when he worked for himself...
If he works for us, and takes it seriously, then he would stop doing that.
But you have to hire him to get him to work for you. :) If you don't hire him, why would he care?
:)
Hmm, try and make billions by selling and supporting phones, or just sit back and make $2B doing nothing.
Microsoft is dumb, but they are not so dumb. :)
That exists, those are IRA accounts. :)
Also, if you put $1K into the account and take out $1K, there is no tax. There is only tax if you sell stuff and make a profit.
What it sounds like you're suggesting is a 1031 like-kind exchange for stocks. I understand the point, but then you end up with a black hole of money that no one wants to take out for fear of huge taxes.
It is less painful to take it in small chunks than all at once.
Also consider that it IS done that way, annually (sort of). If you have $5,000 in stock profits and $2,000 in stock losses, you're only taxed on the $3K profit.
Here's an example.
You explained it very well...
But no politician will agree to this because it'll be seen as a "tax cut for the wealthy" and every politician who pursues this agenda will be hammered in the next election.
Of course, because most people are morons who have no interest in actually understanding anything, they would rather have a gut emotional reaction and think what they are told to think.
Harsh, but more true than I care to admit. I used to be one of them until I opened my eyes and noticed how much I "thought" was not correct.
---
If I were President, I'd drop the corportate tax rate to zero, companies don't pay taxes, people do. I would however raise taxes on the rich and all income would be taxed at the same amount.
It is a crime against humanity that labor is taxed up to 40% yet passive income earned by doing nothing is taxed at half that rate.
Your labor shouldn't be taxed any higher than a banker's passive income.
um.... that much money... um... where's it all gone??
What, you mean over 40 years? You know Apple and Microsoft were started in the 70s, right?
And, you know, they had to pay a few people along the way. :)
How's that Windows Phone thing workin' out for ya?
How much does MS get paid for every Android phone sold?
OEM installs of Windows 8.1 will end in October, 3 months before this law goes into effect.
Why would MS have to backport those features?
Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 are no longer being sold.
Windows 10 isn't a free upgrade from Vista, and it isn't being sold any more than Windows 7 is.
And you say that other people are delusional?
No, but you are if you can't figure out that it was OBVIOUS that the GP was talking about for-profit corporations owned by share-holders...
It shouldn't have even had to be said, but I guess it does because there are fools everywhere.
I actually agree with you... Pro should have more control over the update process...
I completely understand why businesses don't want every single security update going out on day one...
Well, we managed to be fairly effective on ozone and acid rain - so there are at least a few counter examples of this type of thing working without threat of war. I suspect that the same sorts of trade and ecconomic sticks and carrots we used for that might also be workable - but finding the will to do anything in any one spot is a challenge.
While you are correct, those are different things...
The Ozone problem was easily solved because a ready replacement was at hand.
If it had not been, what would we have done? Turned off all the air conditioners? Not likely. :)
The problem is that we have to stop burning coal, oil, and natural gas, and we need to stop burning 80% of it within 35 years. That doesn't strike me as possible.
Right, like Comcast would let a law happen that would cost it money.
It won't be up to Comcast, it will become a national security matter...
False equivalence much? You're comparing apples and oranges assuming they are the same thing.
NOT paying taxes is illegal.
NOT upgrading is legal.
I have a longer view than the next 5 minutes, unlike some kids these days...
It will, sooner or later, become illegal to connect an unpatched device to the Internet.
It will be for reasons of security, for the same reason it is illegal to drive a car with an emission defeat device. Just because you can physically do it doesn't mean it will be allowed.
That day is coming sooner than you probably think.
First, thanks for the rational reply. :)
Second:
At some level what you are saying is correct - moving to non-carbon sources will be more "expensive" at the simplest level of accounting. But at another level it is completely wrong, since the "cheaper" sources have all sorts of externalities that are REAL costs, they are just shifted to other people or other accounting lines. In this particular case, one of the reason the "something" costs less is that the purcase price does not reflect all the costs that are being paid for that thing. What we can hopefully someday do it to make the prices paid by the purchaser more in line with the actual total costs we all pay for the items.
You are correct, assuming that everyone agrees on the external costs and that everyone sees the same costs on the same line of the balance sheet. I don't know if you have noticed (sarcasm intended) or not, but a whole lot of people don't agree on those external costs.
Also worth keeping in mind that is to a lot of people, those external costs are invisible, they aren't paid today, so you're adding them in. They may have always existed, but as far as John and Jane Q. Public are concerned, they are new costs. They will not be happy if someone else tells them they must now pay them. Unhappy people demand their politicians make the problem go away.
If Bob's House of Chips sells lots of bags of chips, but doesn't provide enough trash cans and/or people who take the bags away toss them on the ground a few blocks away - someone besides Bob is paying to clean up the mess. The whole community is paying those costs, while Bob and his customers are the ones who should be shouldering the majority of them. Imposing a cleanup-fee on companies like Bob can be a way to make the price of Bob's bags-o-chips properly reflect the actual total cost of the product, and can make Mary's House of Brownies comparitively less expensive, even though Bob's material and production costs might be lower than Mary's, since her product gets eaten completely and doesn't generate any littering issues.
You of course sum up the problem perfectly... but that problem is easy to understand and most reasonable people would go along with that. But Bob's House of Chips isn't polluting Whereeverstan (random nation that isn't near Bob) on the other side of the planet, and that is where the idea falls apart.
More to the point, if Whereeverstan wants to keep polluting, what does Bob's community do about it? There is this funny little thing called Sovereignty. You can ask nicely, you can apply various types of pressure, but at the end of the day, the only way to MAKE Whereverstand stop polluting is to go to war and use violence.
I fully understand that a handful of nations are serious about doing something about the problem. The issue is that it doesn't actually take THAT many nations to NOT do something to make all those other efforts pointless. If Europe stops burning coal, natural gas, and oil completely, it will just reduce demand, and thus price, for those items. That means a few other nations will have a financial incentive to continue burning them. Like the United States.
Even if the US and China were to cut our CO2 output by half (not at all likely to happen any time soon, but lets pretend), it still wouldn't be enough. But it WOULD be enough to crush our economy and harm the standard of living of a billion people.
Thus we come to the problem of the cure being worse than the disease, while not really fixing the disease. Some people would rather die from cancer than go through cancer treatment. Some people would rather accept climate change rather than pay the price of change. Telling them they are wrong won't change their mind. And that is the real problem you face in trying to solve this.
I've become convinced that Climate Change is the biggest challenge that mankind has yet faced in our history, after the threat of nuclear annihil
No, I'm free to do whatever the fuck I want to do. Connected, disconnected, I'll run it in whatever state of connectivity I like.
You are not the first, and won't be the last person, to say something like that...
Lots of people go to jail kicking and screaming "you can't arrest me, I can do whatever I want".
When it becomes illegal to do it, and it will, you won't have that choice. Sooner or later it will.
I agree with them, at least as far as patching dangerous errors in the software.
You can expect anything you like, clearly the new people at Microsoft feel otherwise.
The days of getting 10 years of support will be here for awhile, but they are not likely to be here forever.
And that's part of the problem Windows 8 is NEW!
Windows 8.0 is not new... it is currently supported as 8.1, which is a free update to everyone and always will be...
Windows 8.1 will continue to get security updates and patches until 2023...
You clearly are reading what you wish to read if you think anything else...
Oh, also essentially brand new since you can still buy newly manufactured PCs with Windows 8.1 pre-installed (through October).
Most of those are older models that simply haven't been updated yet...
And considering that they currently get a free upgrade to Windows 10, you can hardly complain...
In any case, your entire point is meaningless, Windows 8.1 is still mainstream supported with product and feature updates. It is Windows 7 and Windows 8.0 that are out of date.
No, you still don't understand... those aren't the only two options...
That's about the dumbest thing I've read on /.
No, it really isn't, but you can think so all you like...
The ISPs give approximately 0 fucks about how horrible their customers' machines are - they just want the money.
No, you don't get it... sooner or later it will become law...
Meanwhile, MS has an obligation to keep patching their OSs until they're ready to piss off their corporate customer base
Windows as a Service will fix that...
The new version is NOT better.
You're welcome to that opinion, but I disagree... There isn't anything from 7 that I miss in 10...
Two days ago I had to setup Windows 7 on a computer and it did nothing but remind me why all my computers now run Windows 10. It is superior in every way.
And I don't care if Microsoft needs money.
Of course you don't, nor should you... but it was an answer to the point of "who cares if Microsoft needs money". Clearly they care, so they'll run their business that way.
Expecting anything else is just foolish.
Now if they had a useful product then maybe I would consider bumping them ahead in line.
First, Windows 10 is free right now, so you can hardly claim cost is an issue. After July 29 that will no longer be true, but if you skipped the upgrade because you're stubborn, then that is just your fault.
Second, if you like Windows 7, then you're free to keep using it, just keep in mind that it runs out of support in 2020 and it is no longer getting feature updates. If you're ok with that, then more power to you...
I'd rather they quit pestering me to do something I do not want to do.
I understand... I don't want to pay my taxes either, but I have to...
If you're online, you have to keep your computer up to date, to do otherwise is irresponsible and unsafe...
You don't have to like it, but you have to do it.
Don't be surprised if 10 years from now, ISPs don't allow your out of date computer to connect to the Internet at all.
You of course are free to run it at home all you like disconnected.
Essentially brand new because it's only 3 years old.
In computer terms, 3 years isn't "new" at all...
Even a 3 year old car is considered new, though not brand new. Anyone replacing a car in 3 years is too fashion conscience most likely.
Nope, you couldn't be more wrong...
I replaced my 2012 SUV with the 2015 model because the 2015 model has auto-emergency braking, lane departure warning, cross traffic alert, etc...
The 2012 version didn't have any of that and those are pure safety features.
Replacing an OS in only 3 years is something silly, like getting a new iphone just because there is one.
A 3 year old iPhone is quite different to the new one. That would be the first iPhone 5, and the iPhone 6s is quite different to the iPhone 5 in features and size.
Windows 7 has been in productive service (not limping along) for 6 years.
Windows 7 is showing its age now... it was wonderful when it came out, but it becomes obvious when you switch between 7 and 10 how much has changed.
Yes, MS could technically just offer service packs to include the features in 7 that exist in 10, but again, that isn't how this works. You aren't paying them a yearly fee to support that.
If Windows ever becomes a "service" rather than a "product", then you may well see that feature.
XP is still in service many places and is perfectly fine for many things, and it's been around for 14 years.
Not in general use however. Sure, it runs specific programs on specific machines that don't have to be connected to anything, but it long since doesn't belong on a general desktop computer.
Why replace the OS when it's perfectly fine, has no problems, runs all the software you want to run on it, and will be supported until 2023?
No one says you have to, but why keep the OS when the new version is better, runs all the software you want to run on it, and will be supported even longer, and better yet, it is FREE!
Who cares if Microsoft needs money or not?
Microsoft does...
7 still has more marketshare than 10. After 10 months of a free "upgrade" offer from a 7 year old OS.
Yes, because most people never change the OS that comes with their computers...
Those people will use Windows 7 until 2020 when support ends, then buy a new computer with Windows 11 on it...
Nothing new there...
Yes it is, however are you aware of Windows 7 support by Microsoft actually expired on January 13, 2015 and unless you have extended support which expires January 14, 2020 you are effectively running on an unsupported operating system.
You are mistaken...
Microsoft ended mainstream support, which simply means no new product features...
EVERYONE gets extended support for bug fixes and security updates until 2020.