Hermit wrote:
The fact is that the more money you have, the smaller the percentage you pay on your income.
In the US we have a progressive income tax system where the marginal rate goes up in stages as income goes up. The long term capital gains rate is a way to reduce taxation on capital gains in recognition of the fact that the money used to buy an equity which "gains" value has already been taxed. I.e., generally you take your after tax income and buy a stock. So, you're buying a piece of a company. That company goes up in value and the stock goes up in value. So, when you sell it, the increase in value is your capital gain. But, it's not the same as ordinary income because you've taken after-tax money and put it "at risk." You're not getting 100% write off if the stock goes to zero -- I mean, if you want to tax it as regular income, then shouldn't all stock losses result in reduced income? I buy a share of apple for $200 and it tanks to $50 vs. bought at $200 and goes up to $350. If I'm going to be socked for 28% or 39% on the $150 gain, shouldn't my loss be deducted from my income so I get the benefit of a reduced tax?
Also, another reason for reducing the long term capital gains tax is to encourage people to invest in long term investments.
Hermit wrote:
And no, I will not contribute more to contribute to the perks of our politicians or the implementation of their absurd policies than I must. Every single cent of mine that went towards our erstwhile Speaker of the House, Julie Bishop, when she used a government helicopter at a cost of over $5000 to attend a fundraiser an hour's drive from her home, hurts. She was made to repay that, but she also claimed $800,000 in expenses on top of her parliamentary salary and perks in 2014 alone, none of which she repaid. Those expenses included almost $90,000 for a trip to Europe she felt entitled to because she was bidding for presidency of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. And it does not end there. When she retired after losing preselection to her seat a year later she got a $200,000 a year pension, indexed and not means tested, a "Golden Pass" for plane trips and other perks.
Sounds like you folks in the civilized world have some problems to work out of your own. None of that seems to be an argument in favor of taxing the middling person out the wazoo on his TD Ameritrade Account, or the long term gain on the sale of his house.
Hermit wrote:
As for policies, I want as little of my money to go towards funding the billions of dollars our governments - conservative and Labor alike - provide to private schools above the money they save by not providing schools for students that go to them. I did study in one of them. Should I have been grateful to our Prime Minister when he attended the opening of its extensions because the government chipped in most of the money for it, including the Olympic-sized swimming pool that was part of it? Should I be happy when the government financed the acquisition of land by another school, because it felt it needed a second rifle range? All this, while students in government schools continue to swelter in classrooms without air conditioning when temperatures go above 40°C?
No, but that's why we need to get the largess out of the system, if possible. The government needs to be reigned in. Vote libertarian.
Hermit wrote:
Fuck them. Fuck them all. While we have governments like the above, my spare money goes to my favourite charities, which is me, followed by Greenpeace and Oxfam, and the amount going to the latter will increase in line with the amount I can spare. I can happily spare any income above $50,000 a year.
Well, that's mighty white of you. Too bad you're not the one who gets to determine the income level above which you ought to spare. There are a boat load of folks making $25k, who'd happy vote for you to spare a whole lot more. See how that works?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar