Forgejo is changing its license to a Copyleft license. This blog post will try to bring clarity about the impact to you, explain the motivation behind this change and answer some questions you might have.

...

Developers who choose to publish their work under a copyleft license are excluded from participating in software that is published under a permissive license. That is at the opposite of the core values of the Forgejo project and in June 2023 it was decided to also accept copylefted contributions. A year later, in August 2024, the first pull request to take advantage of this opportunity was proposed and merged.

...

Forgejo versions starting from v9.0 are now released under the GPL v3+ and earlier Forgejo versions, including v8.0 and v7.0 patch releases remain under the MIT license.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The top 10% as a whole pays 71.22%, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers account for only 2.89% of all income taxes.

This is misinformation, because it paints a picture of the rich being hard done by.

The bottom 50% pays an actual tax rate that is a higher percentage of their earnings than the top 50%. The richer you are, the more opportunity you have to reduce your tax burden. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-much-poor-actually-pay-taxes-probably-think

Your own numbers are an indicator of massive income disparity.

[–] LemoineFairclough@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the tax system in the USA is designed to reward people who form corporations and then get people employed. People who are employed don't have as much time to work on reforming institutions, so giving a tax break for employing people makes powerful people's lives easier. In order to keep this process revenue neutral, earned income is taxed instead of taxing business as much. After extracting money from people's labor (since labor is clearly necessary in order to create wealth), the remainder of budget needs is made up from whatever resources are easily available (which is currently the assets of rich people, since they have been given a lot of money to get people employed).

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah dude. The value of these corporations in inflated or neutral at best. Corporations pop up that are solely created to shelter or exploit to expand wealth.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not actually higher:

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/

Top 1% pay 25.9% of their income to taxes, bottom 50% pay 3.3%

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

That doesn't take into account non federal tax.

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2024/

This says it more explicitly.

using a more realistic definition of income that includes unrealized capital gains, they found that the same 25 Americans paid just 3.4 percent of their income in taxes during that period. If unrealized capital gains were included in these estimates, ITEP, too, would calculate a much lower effective tax rate for the rich

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Also, reported income is not the same for regular people and the top 1%. Tax evasion techniques makes it seem as if they have way less income than they really have.

EDIT: I do realize some of this could be incorporated into the statement of your quote above.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah dude it's all a game :/

[–] iopq@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can I pay my rent with unrealized capital gains?

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@iopq Not you.. but yes it's possible and generally it creates financial bubbles. Basically using your capital as collateral on your mortgage. An example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpV1FS-gRZw (4:50)

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But then I'd have to take out loans to pay my taxes which is absurd. I'll have to pay taxes on money that I don't physically have

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

@iopq You asked about rent, not taxes. They actually avoid taxes in this way. And yes, using money they don't physically have is exactly the source of all financial bubbles.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying you can't pay with paper money, you must pay with real money for everything.

I'm not against considering loans against unrealized assets as realization (with stepped up basis) since the person taking out said loan can use it to pay said tax.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

People do this exact thing all the time. Taking on debts to keep cashflow or avoid taxes is normal.

If you are just sitting on unproductive assets instead of realising their value in some way, you are doing the wrong thing.

You should be able to gain revenue from the asset or it wouldn't have appreciating value.

All your comments don't make sense, it's like you just want to take from the economy without giving anything back.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I forgot the most obvious example:

If you bought a house for $200,000 and when you retire it's worth $1,000,000 the government shouldn't demand you pay a percentage of your "gain" for the rest of your life or until you are forced to sell it.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why not

Taxes bad?

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You are saying you want to tax retired people with no income just because they have a place to live in. Should we kick them out for nonpayment of said taxes too? Because that's what would happen. It happens in states with property taxes, but now you want to take it national.

This is the problem with leftists. This message would be an extremely bad electoral platform.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Zero cashflow retirees are not a thing.

ALL states have property tax.

You don't know what you are talking about if you don't understand how taxes are offset and credited. You are just whining about not wanting to participate in society.

Taxes pay for things, go get educated.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They have social security and some of them have savings. My mom is planning to retire in West Virginia and she's already planning on selling her current residence to build a house there. She chose a low property tax state on purpose.

At this point she would only receive social security and start to go through her savings to live. You want to start charging her federal taxes the moment her property is worth $1 more than what she bought it for, even though she's on fixed income.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yup. And then credit it against standard deduction rates so that 🤡s owning multiple unoccupied homes pay real amounts while your grandmother pays pennies

Like a normal tax system, you doink

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She owns one home now and one plot of land. She doesn't own multiple unoccupied homes. She's also my mother, not my grandmother

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you a bot or something?

Please answer in ASCII semaphore or French if you don't know semaphore.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I don't know French, but here:

O O O

Close enough?

[–] iopq@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Let's say I give $100,000 to a friend that starts a start-up. You claim after some years that investment is worth $1,000,000 and want me to pay $150,000 tax

I take out a loan for $150,000 because the startup didn't make any profit. The startup goes bust. I now have a $100,000 loss and I paid $150,000 in taxes. Thankfully I can write $3000 off on my taxes every year until I die!

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If the startup made no profit it would never be worth 1000000. You would only have a capital gain if value was realizable.

If you never made a dime from your initial 100000 investment you would sell off the asset at that point instead of paying taxes.

If you were too dumb to sell parts of your assets, and instead chose to be cash negative or fail to pay your taxes, you kind of deserve to lose everything because you were too stubborn to receive advice from anybody.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Amazon had its first profitable year in 2003. It was worth 21 billion dollars.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/revenues_annual

For reference

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Did I say zero revenue? I said didn't make a profit. Lots of companies made money, but couldn't make more money than they spent. You can easily have an investment that is valued high that you can't cash out

Let's say you bought some stock now, at the end of the year it's worth $1,000,000 and you get charged $150,000 in April. Big problem, the brokerages stopped allowing you to sell the stock and it crashed down, so now your GameStop stock is worth $100,000

How do you pay?

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You don't pay... This is a solved problem, wealth gain/loss would work the same way as capital gain/loss

You can use a net capital loss to reduce your taxable capital gain in any of the 3 preceding years or in any future year.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/capital-losses-deductions/you-use-a-capital-loss.html

It feels like people that don't like this don't actually know how to whole system is supposed to work.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Canada?!

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but how much cashflow did it have, and how much in dividends did the individual stakeholders receive.

It never didn't pay it's taxes afaik

Edit: I'm fact checking myself, Amazon's strategy is reinvesting all profits to support further growth. They were never in a position like the other poster is describing.

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

There were companies that didn't survive the dot com crash despite being worth billions. Amazon is a company you would recognize, even though a better company is pets.com

If you bought their stock you would be very rich for a very short while until it went bankrupt