Creative Taxation on Capital Gains

Capital gains taxing has been a hot-button topic for as long as I can remember. Cuts in the rate benefit the rich disproportionately. But they benefit anyone who holds mutual funds or IRAs or any other security, property, or commodity with the potential for eventual profit. One major problem is creating a tax-rate has always been a shot in the dark - 36%, 28.2%, 21.4% - proposals fly based on predictions of expected income, which are tied to the performance of the economy, and are therefore unpredictable.
The main problem is created by profit-driven speculators. Reducing the capital gains rate across the board benefits those who buy stocks for a day and sell them the next, which doesn't benefit the company at all - and represents a very small portion of the population.
If the goal of our government (as it has been stated by many) is to encourage long-term investment, which benefits industry, which creates jobs, which improves our economy, and on and on; then there is an easy way to do that.
Instead of creating a new rate, tax capital gains at the prevailing tax rate. If a security or property is held for over 2 years (even 1 day over), divide the tax rate by 2. If held for 3 years, divide by 3, and so on. That way, a capital gain realized after a taxpayer in the 28% bracket, who sells a house held for 4 years would be 7%; if held for 28 years, it would only be taxed at 1% - which encourages holding long-term, which prevents someone from becoming financially house-bound, and the rate is EASY to figure out, even by someone completing their own taxes.
Taxing gains on anything held less than 2 years at the prevailing tax rate, instead of a reduced rate, should much more than make up for any loss of future income due to this program - and if speculators hold investments longer to avoid the higher tax rate, that's good for everyone.

Retroactive Action

Whether you sympathize with Hillary Clinton or not, it does seem as if every thinking Democrat (is that oxymoronic?) ought to be able to reject out of hand the idea that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would be seated. It is clear that this was a planned campaign tactic on her part; while others respected the call of the Party, those who refrained even from campaigning in those states, responding to the terms which were set before them - playing the "game" according to the rules at the time. Clearly running against a Clinton they ought to have anticipated that for them reality has nothing to do with the bid for office.
Hillary blatently lies about being shot at while visiting troops overseas, and the media jump all over her like hyenas attacking - well, a nap. Her spokespeople blatently lie about her lie - saying it is because she was tired, it was late - she's been campaigning hard - she did after all live with Bill for many years, and how could that not cause you to be confused over what is actually true? And none of them are called on the carpet. While accepting public monies (matching funds), or donations solicited over the internet, or through the United States Post Office, shouldn't there be some standard of expectation that candidates and their representatives tell the truth? Are we going to hold Roger Clemons to a higher standard of "testimony" before Congress, than someone running for the office of President?
Aren't the candidates, each time the step up to the podium, and have their comments broadcast over the public airwaves, essentially testifying, not only before Congress, but before the electorate? Could they not be sworn in, at the inception of each campaign? I can understand spin - like when Barack wins more delegates on a given day, and Hillary claims victory. I can understand optimism in the face of daunting odds. But this is a person who directly lied - a lie which, if believed, would work to her benefit - then lied about the lie. Isn't that what she and the other lawyers who went after Richard Nixon claimed was the worst, most unforgivable, of his actions?
She and the other candidates entered the arena, agreeing to certain rules. Among those rules it was clearly known that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the convention. Now, again when it is to her benefit, she argues vociferously for their inclusion. Changing the rules now would be like changing the tax burden on a business in the middle of the year - okay, not a good example - they do that all the time. That kind of retroactive re-drawing of the rules is absurd. Of course, that does depend on what your definition of is - is.

A Delicious Dilemma

Despite the fact the two incumbent parties have so hijacked the system that no one even questions any longer the expense of over $100 million by each candidate to earn their parties nomination, making the office virtually inacessible to anyone who is not embedded in the two-party system, how wonderful this Presidential election is about to become, as soon as Hillary Clinton is forced to face the music.
We will be left (on the left hand) with Barack Obama, an amazingly gifted orator, an inspiring dynamic intellectual; who happens to be black, giving us the opportunity to participate in meaningful history by voting for him as President - and on the right hand with John McCain, an honest-to-goodness war hero (not a pretend hero who threw away medals he really didn't deserve), a man who has maintained a fierce individualism despite the pressure of his party, one who has demonstrated a willingness to work with both parties, one who has extraordinary experience in Foreign Policy and in Washington. We will, for once, actually have a choice as thinking voters - not just a determination of the lesser of two evils.
How delicious.
Best of all, both candidates have steadfastly refused to participate in dragging their opponents through the muck, both have stated outright that they respect the other, and both have set forth an expectation to change the politics of derision in America. It might actually be a General Election campaign that focuses on issues of weight - and by the conduct of its participants may even have enough cache to erase from our minds the sound and fury of the past year's primary debacles, to the point where everyone is aware that the tales they told signify nothing.