MisterFrog

The dusters won't take him. Better just leave him in space

In response to both comments in the tree. This logic makes no sense. Having your finger cut off or your hand cut off are both unacceptable, but one sure is preferable. You can say "I don't like it! I don't agree to either", but it's just putting your head in the sand.

"Both sides" being equally bad is complete nonsense. The Democrats sure are a right wing party by international standards, and pertetuators of inequality and the status quo of capitalism, and US imperialism. However, you are blind if you think the Republicans aren't worse.

Stop having a hard-on for revolution, because it almost always ends up producing undesired results.

Revolution in the USA pretty much means civil war, and if you're being honest with yourself, you know it.

No, according to the poster, this post was removed from r/NCD (on Reddit).

No, it's just a fundamental, inescapable fact of your voting system that voting for a candidate that won't win, instead of voting for the candidate who might win and you'd prefer over the other most likely candidate, is a vote for the candidate you'd prefer less.

Please look up the spoiler effect earnestly (cgpgrey has a passable video on the topic). It's not the voters fault they're forced into voting for candidates that aren't their favourite, it's the voting system's fault.

Edit for your convenience: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

As a citizen of one of the US's vassal states, I can't vote, but this shit affects us all, as the US is the world overlord. A trump presidency would be devastating, in my point of view.

Please fucking vote for the Dems if you'd prefer them over the Republicans. Please learn how your terrible system actually works. This vassal begs you.

Oh and campaign to improve the voting system so you can actually vote for the candidates you like best.

Why yes, let perfect be the enemy of good.

While yes, Australia's voting system still is not great (single member electorates), and inequality is still bad, and we're capitalist like the US, it's sure as hell no where near as bad here, and I would argue, partially due to our better elections (it's not even close).

We have pretty good worker protections, healthcare that's not ridiculously expensive (though, we're working on it...), and overall much better social programs.

I would be surprised if our voting system had nothing to do with that.

FPTP is trash, it's basically only gets bette for any other system (hyperbole, but not by much).

Got about half way through this, yikes. I thought their pricing was already a bit steep per search, but considering the company decisions, it does not fill you with confidence.

I will reiterate, that this back-of-the-napkin idea only works with other policies to stabilise house prices. Because yeah, right now, it wouldn't make sense. Would need to be phased in over a long-time (certainly taxing people now on capital gains since they moved in decades ago would be entirely unfair).

Though, it still rubs me the wrong way currently that the haves are getting a way better deal than the have nots. Again, in theory, you could sell up and put yourself in the same position as someone who can't afford a house, by renting, and have a bunch of capital gains tax free, whereas they have to pay a higher tax rate on their total income - that is the normal tax rates - even though they're poorer. Seems unfair (but I'm not suggesting the fix is immediately taxing capital gains on owner occupiers).

Canberra seems to have a few good rental laws then, as last I heard rent increases are capped at 2% beyond inflation. Which at least means they haven't had the stupid rental increases all the othe cities have seen the last few years.

Yes. Because we've made housing a viable investment, it keeps going up beyond inflation, so that currently you do need all the money from selling a house, including what's way above inflation on average, to be able to afford another. It's stupid, and eventually it's gonna break. I agree though, it's currently required to not tax captial gains on somewhere you live, else you'll get priced out.

In an idealised world, though, where we progressively stabilise housing prices, I would propose you get taxed on your capital gain, even if you live there, perhaps only on the gain above inflation, and be still able to buy a similar property with the money left over because the house prices wouldn't be going up by stupid amount every year.

I get where you're coming from, and perhaps I didn't include this nuance before: I want all capital gains taxed, including the place you live in, precisely to stop making housing "a good investment".

I should say then, I just don't think it's terribly fair on people who can't afford somewhere to own, because those who are in, get favourable tax relief. Someone worked for 10 years and made $600,000? Yeah, have fun getting taxed the normal amount, while those who own housing may have made a couple hundred grand in the same time and get taxed nothing. As an individual, sure, you're no better off if you buy another house, but you have the option of not buying another house and doing something else with the money tax free. A worker just get taxed and has no choice.

I think all captial gains should be taxed the same as income, with special provisions for housing to get good overall outcomes for inequality and the individual also. But not zero just because you lived in the house.

I just think zero captial gains on housing you live in isn't ideal either. Averaging the gain across the time you held it, at your tax bracket for each year, seems fairer (in a world where we also use other methods to stabilise the housing market).

Simple maths (but made up) example: you're in the 30% tax bracket every year (kept earning the same inflation equivalent amount of money). Let's say your capital gain is $300,000 above what inflation was during 10 years. You then aportion that gain over ten years according to some lookup table which lists the inflation rate for each financial year, and whatever it bumps your tax bracket to that year, you owe that much on that portion per year.

If we pretend inflation was 2% every year, then we just back calculate the inflation adjusted, equal portion of tax across the 10 years.

So for a steady 2% per year it would be something like this:

So you pay 30% (or whatever it brings your tax bracket to) on the equal inflation adjusted 1/10th of the total gain above inflation.

The tax office can just make yearly lookup tables, or calculators, to assist with this.

If this example maths doesn't make 100% sense, well whoops, this is back of the napkin brainstorming, but I think you can understand my intent.

Hope you enjoy this brainstorm lol

I'm sorry, NZ doesn't have captial gains tax??? Thanks backwards as fuck.

I mean, over here in Australia we give a 50% discount, which is already bullshit in my opinion, for assets held for at least a year, and waived for primary residences under a certain value (which is also bullshit, in my opinion. You'd be getting taxed on the gain only, not sure why living there somehow makes that capital gain special), but no capital gains at all? That's nuts.

Why howdy to you too 🐸🫱🎩

Not a lawyer, but something makes me doubt all the courts around the world would hold to this.

What country are you in? You may be entitled to a refund/replacement since you have the receipts