People comparing the hits of yesteryear to the norms or even lows of today is a thing.

Yeah... I'm pretty sure the white space is part of the spec for a QR code.

I think the actual take is probably closer to "I wish we went back to a time when record companies would take a bet on anyone, regardless of the overall package, looks etc"

Which tbh, is probably more of a fairy tale view of years olden days than anything else.

I'm really curious if they can make video injection of ads cost effective.

It feels like mangeling video streams into one, potentially re-encoding the video as they go... sounds expensive

Partner has a phd. Can confirm she recommends no one ever do it.

She only finished it out of spite, so her paper work no longer has miss/Mrs and no relation to her marriage status.

Sounds reasonable. Why not both? Both sound good.

It is the standard. Now. Currently.

If you don't like it, might I suggest a guillotine or several. Worked for the French.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-fraud-ruling-property-valuation-michael-cohen

A former sitting president has been indicted, if not convicted of this very crime. You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe it's that uncommon.

It can just be flipped on it's head;

How are you going to enforce taxing on value, the person can just cite whatever value they want for the asset.

I said investors

This would effectively lock out every small investor

But sure, now we're just insulting each other, I'm going to ignore that and try to answer your point.

TBH. US tax is weird as fuck, and I don't know nearly enough about it to have more than a high level discussion on it. In my head, this would simply change when you're paying taxes, as opposed to how much.

But.... Nope. Tried to reason about it, can't think of a nice clean way out. It's friday afternoon. I'm out.

What is your alternative solution to the over all problem?

You said small investors not Wallstreetbet degenerates.

Someone here has made a false assumption. In fact, I'm pretty sure we both have made several. The question is who has made a fatal false assumption? Let's go.

My root comment, at the top of all of this, was my idea that perhaps we should consider gains "realized" when they are sold OR used as a collateral in a loan.

Your assertion is that it would wipe out small investors.

I would question how many small investors are using their small investments as collateral in a loan?

I was talking for a hypothetical world where that law isn't a thing and simply paying capital gains in "realized" gains is.

Nut hey, yeah, sure, 100mil works too.

How so?

"Oh no, I made money, better put a small percentage of my gains away for tax season, just like I do with all of my income, because I'm American and lack a good PAYE system".

Depends on the exact implementation, but sure, you could happily write a version where an initial home loan isn't hit, and only "top up" loans against the INCREASED value of your home is targeted.

You'd have to put some controls in there for that solution to work. Hitting new homeowners with an immediate tax on "earning" $1,000,000 to pay for their house seems a bit cruel.

I'd rather we went back to taxing the rich properly and stopped having crumbling infrastructure.

There's a very good reason they should be taxed; half a dozen people are richer than god, and basically never pay any real amount of tax.

Where I'm from, we don't do that. All dividends come with an "imputation credit," which basically says "this money's already been taxed."

"Yes*"

*As with all rules, it can vary by country. As I understand it, the US tends to double tax dividends, which is a rabbit hole of why the US market chases valuation so hard