Right Wing Regressives Need to Stop

[pErvinalia]

In Oz your house isn't subject to capital gains tax unless it has been used for investment purposes (i.e. rental returns).

That's outrageous, isn't it? I mean, it should be, right? A capital gains tax of ZERO! What "absurd policy" is that???? No civilized country would tax capital gains at zero....

LOL

What is 'Capital'

Capital refers to financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as funds held in deposit accounts, as well as the tangible machinery and production equipment used in environments such as factories and other manufacturing facilities. Additionally, capital includes facilities, such as the buildings used for the production and storage of the manufactured goods. Materials used and consumed as part of the manufacturing process do not qualify.
BREAKING DOWN 'Capital'

While money is used simply to purchase goods and services for consumption, capital is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment. Examples of capital include automobiles, patents, software and brand names. All of these items are inputs that can be used to create wealth. Besides being used in production, capital can be rented out for a monthly or annual fee to create wealth, or it can be sold when it is no longer required.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp

[rainbow]

In Oz your house isn't subject to capital gains tax unless it has been used for investment purposes (i.e. rental returns).

That's outrageous, isn't it? I mean, it should be, right? A capital gains tax of ZERO! What "absurd policy" is that???? No civilized country would tax capital gains at zero....

LOL

What is 'Capital'

Capital refers to financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as funds held in deposit accounts, as well as the tangible machinery and production equipment used in environments such as factories and other manufacturing facilities. Additionally, capital includes facilities, such as the buildings used for the production and storage of the manufactured goods. Materials used and consumed as part of the manufacturing process do not qualify.
BREAKING DOWN 'Capital'

While money is used simply to purchase goods and services for consumption, capital is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment. Examples of capital include automobiles, patents, software and brand names. All of these items are inputs that can be used to create wealth. Besides being used in production, capital can be rented out for a monthly or annual fee to create wealth, or it can be sold when it is no longer required.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp

So out of date, as it doesn't include IP.

[Hermit]

In Oz your house isn't subject to capital gains tax unless it has been used for investment purposes (i.e. rental returns).

That's outrageous, isn't it? I mean, it should be, right? A capital gains tax of ZERO! What "absurd policy" is that???? No civilized country would tax capital gains at zero....

LOL

What is 'Capital'

Capital refers to financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as funds held in deposit accounts, as well as the tangible machinery and production equipment used in environments such as factories and other manufacturing facilities. Additionally, capital includes facilities, such as the buildings used for the production and storage of the manufactured goods. Materials used and consumed as part of the manufacturing process do not qualify.
BREAKING DOWN 'Capital'

While money is used simply to purchase goods and services for consumption, capital is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment. Examples of capital include automobiles, patents, software and brand names. All of these items are inputs that can be used to create wealth. Besides being used in production, capital can be rented out for a monthly or annual fee to create wealth, or it can be sold when it is no longer required.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp

So out of date, as it doesn't include IP.

Intellectual property is linked to later in the article. There are also separate articles dealing with IP, such as the one beginning with "Some kinds of intellectual property are considered capital assets..."

[pErvinalia]

In Oz your house isn't subject to capital gains tax unless it has been used for investment purposes (i.e. rental returns).

That's outrageous, isn't it? I mean, it should be, right? A capital gains tax of ZERO! What "absurd policy" is that???? No civilized country would tax capital gains at zero....

LOL

What is 'Capital'

Capital refers to financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as funds held in deposit accounts, as well as the tangible machinery and production equipment used in environments such as factories and other manufacturing facilities. Additionally, capital includes facilities, such as the buildings used for the production and storage of the manufactured goods. Materials used and consumed as part of the manufacturing process do not qualify.
BREAKING DOWN 'Capital'

While money is used simply to purchase goods and services for consumption, capital is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment. Examples of capital include automobiles, patents, software and brand names. All of these items are inputs that can be used to create wealth. Besides being used in production, capital can be rented out for a monthly or annual fee to create wealth, or it can be sold when it is no longer required.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp

So out of date, as it doesn't include IP.

The point was that a house that you live in and doesn't generate income for you isn't considered capital and therefore is rightly not subject to capital gains tax.

[Svartalf]

I know, I still pay mmassive taxes on the place I live in...

[Brian Peacock]

Regressiveness is everywhere...

Why are 13 men in charge of healthcare for all American women?

A decade or two ago, the notion that 13 men would be plotting the fate of American women’s healthcare behind closed doors, that they would delight in defunding the women’s health organization Planned Parenthood and impeding healthcare access for millions of American women, would have felt like the politics of a bygone era.

Midway through 2017, it feels more like deja vu ... Specifically, it feels like a return to a kind of regressive gender politics they hoped had passed in America: a politics in which men make the decisions about what happens to women’s bodies.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... _clipboard

[Forty Two]

what a dopey article - the same political system governing all health care governs "women's health care" too. It's the same politicians. What's the expectation here? There'd be different elected officials handling certain issues?

And, the complaints about the bill -- nothing over the top here - "cruel" - "partisan attack on women's health." No specifics, of course. Just the broad allegation.

Oh, the President of Planned Parenthood says that if "they" asked the President of Planned Parenthood what she thought, then things would be different? Wow. That's brilliant. You mean a private entity that gets federal funds and wants more federal funds would want even more funds, if they had their 'druthers? Shocker.

The new healthcare bill is said to produce 22 million more uninsured persons in this country...even though Obamacare did not succeed in insuring that many people. LOL.

But, naturally, 22 million more uninsured, yes, but women are "particularly" impacted by it. Yes, it's always worse for women. How? The article does not lay out a case. It's just always worse for women. We know that. It's particularly devastating to women, they say, because the bill would stop requiring states to require insurance companies to pay for contraception as a covered item on health insurance policies. LOL. Wow. Devastating. Men's birth control is not covered now, but unless insurance companies are mandated to cover women's birth control, then that's "particularly devastating" to women. And, the law "blocks" women from getting healthcare FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Because, you know, women can't go to doctors and hospitals under their health plans. We have to fund a private company, planned parenthood, separate and distinct from health insurance, or it's devastating to women.

[Forty Two]

In Oz your house isn't subject to capital gains tax unless it has been used for investment purposes (i.e. rental returns).

That's outrageous, isn't it? I mean, it should be, right? A capital gains tax of ZERO! What "absurd policy" is that???? No civilized country would tax capital gains at zero....

LOL

What is 'Capital'

Capital refers to financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as funds held in deposit accounts, as well as the tangible machinery and production equipment used in environments such as factories and other manufacturing facilities. Additionally, capital includes facilities, such as the buildings used for the production and storage of the manufactured goods. Materials used and consumed as part of the manufacturing process do not qualify.
BREAKING DOWN 'Capital'

While money is used simply to purchase goods and services for consumption, capital is more durable and is used to generate wealth through investment. Examples of capital include automobiles, patents, software and brand names. All of these items are inputs that can be used to create wealth. Besides being used in production, capital can be rented out for a monthly or annual fee to create wealth, or it can be sold when it is no longer required.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp

So regressive...the wealthier people, with the means to own houses, get a zero tax on their unfair gains - gains for doing nothing but owning a house. Poor people - renters - get no such gains.

[pErvinalia]

Very true. 99% top tax rate now!!

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

...if only St. Obama kept his promise...

[Brian Peacock]

what a dopey article - the same political system governing all health care governs "women's health care" too. It's the same politicians. What's the expectation here? There'd be different elected officials handling certain issues?

And, the complaints about the bill -- nothing over the top here - "cruel" - "partisan attack on women's health." No specifics, of course. Just the broad allegation.

Oh, the President of Planned Parenthood says that if "they" asked the President of Planned Parenthood what she thought, then things would be different? Wow. That's brilliant. You mean a private entity that gets federal funds and wants more federal funds would want even more funds, if they had their 'druthers? Shocker.

The new healthcare bill is said to produce 22 million more uninsured persons in this country...even though Obamacare did not succeed in insuring that many people. LOL.

But, naturally, 22 million more uninsured, yes, but women are "particularly" impacted by it. Yes, it's always worse for women. How? The article does not lay out a case. It's just always worse for women. We know that. It's particularly devastating to women, they say, because the bill would stop requiring states to require insurance companies to pay for contraception as a covered item on health insurance policies. LOL. Wow. Devastating. Men's birth control is not covered now, but unless insurance companies are mandated to cover women's birth control, then that's "particularly devastating" to women. And, the law "blocks" women from getting healthcare FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Because, you know, women can't go to doctors and hospitals under their health plans. We have to fund a private company, planned parenthood, separate and distinct from health insurance, or it's devastating to women.

Before the ACA there was only one policy that covered maternity care in the whole of Missouri. Do you think that the absence of a requirement to provide pre- and postnatal cover is not of particular importance to women, or just that something as fundamental as child birth and maternity care should be regulated by market forces alone? The other point about a regressive attitude that considers the representation of women in the drafting process unnecessary is a valid one, and one you skirted.

[L'Emmerdeur]

...if only St. Obama kept his promise...

From a source that you don't like:

During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut.

Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama's statement True.

[Forty Two]

Whatever the Tax Policy Center researched ahead of time, the result of his policies was to increase taxes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... a9337efe01 "in 2013, a huge tax increase affecting ordinary workers took effect, raising the employee payroll tax from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent. A worker earning $50,000 a year saw disposable income decline by $1,000.....The payroll tax figures as a much bigger source of taxation for the middle class than for the rich. Payroll taxes only apply to the first $117,000 of income. For someone earning $1 million a year, the annual payroll tax would max out at just over $2,000, or 0.2 percent of income. For someone making $20,000 a year, it would equal $400, or a full 2 percent of income. "

Typically, places that review the tax issue and conclude that Obama did not raise taxes on the middle class fail to take into consideration the tax hikes within Obamacare - http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare- ... sted-a7010 and https://www.atr.org/obamacare%E2%80%99s ... -tax-hikes

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

The other point about a regressive attitude that considers the representation of women in the drafting process unnecessary is a valid one, and one you up-skirted.

Fixed...