The National Association of REALTORS is all over this and working to get it repealed, before it takes effect.
But, I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners.
Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013.
Why 2013? Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections? So, this is "change you can believe in"? Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax.
If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.
This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important?
Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone.
There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it either
http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home <http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home>
"We've been flooded with queries about this one ever since the health care bill became law. At the last minute, Democratic lawmakers decided on a new 3.8 percent tax on the net investment income of high-income persons. But the claim that this would amount to a $15,200 tax on the sale of a typical $400,000 home is utterly false.
The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won't apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home."
http://factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
Why do you think they wanted it to pass before anyone with a brain could read it. There are a lot more hidden "bite you in the butt" laws that will come in to effect if 2012 and 2013.
So read it for yourself...all of it. Most people's homes aren't that expensive and most don't make over $200,000. For those who do...rich people's worries, who cares? ;)
Any accountant can explain it. Mine already did. Most $500,000 homes around here have dropped in value and when you factor in capital gains, it's not so much, according to the chart. Not that they are selling. The market for the huge homes is about dead right now.
Quote from: flintauqua on November 16, 2011, 01:43:40 PM
"We've been flooded with queries about this one ever since the health care bill became law. At the last minute, Democratic lawmakers decided on a new 3.8 percent tax on the net investment income of high-income persons. But the claim that this would amount to a $15,200 tax on the sale of a typical $400,000 home is utterly false.
The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won't apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home."
http://factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
I can't believe yall actually think the government has our best interest at heart. SHeeesh. They have done nothing but proven they will screw us without the vaseline every chance they get. From the white house down to the councilmen.
Trust Government? Satan will need a parka first
Diane or Flint never appear to be opposed to Federal tax increases or new Federal taxes.
Liberty means more than Federalism - at least for Americans it ought to.
I don't worry about things that affect people that make over $200,000 and own $500,000 homes, either.
You ought to.
Why do you want the Gov't to go after them? So you can get their money thru the government?
Do you ever think in terms of liberty?
It's no wonder that this country is in debt and that our freedoms are disappearing.
Quote from: Wilma on November 16, 2011, 08:44:19 PM
I don't worry about things that affect people that make over $200,000 and own $500,000 homes, either.
Of course, why should you concern yourself....
Between each of them & each of their employers they are are forced to 'contribute' only about $26000/yr to keep
your Social Security checks coming and $11600/yr to help pay for
your doctor visits. Screw em, you're entitled to it, so why worry about their finances & liberty or that of their employer.
Quote from: redcliffsw on November 16, 2011, 08:28:16 PM
Diane or Flint never appear to be opposed to Federal tax increases or new Federal taxes.
Liberty means more than Federalism - at least for Americans it ought to.
I did not say anything to that effect in what I posted. I merely presented factual information that corrected the massive inaccuracies in what you posted.
I believe Liberty is served best when the electorate makes well-informed decisions based on factual information, not incendiary hyperbole.
In other words, you're right there with the "democracy" thing even when it denies liberty?
I do not believe having a representative democracy, aka democratic republic, form of government denies liberty. Having a more pure republic structure of which you often post does deny liberty to all but a few. If the founding fathers form of republic is what you are advocating, then you're saying that only land owning white males should have the right to vote.
Quote from: flintauqua on November 16, 2011, 09:31:57 PM
I did not say anything to that effect in what I posted. I merely presented factual information that corrected the massive inaccuracies in what you posted.
I believe Liberty is served best when the electorate makes well-informed decisions based on factual information, not incendiary hyperbole.
What you posted wasn't fact or even correct information. Those that own the site you used are pawns of soros and this admin. Sheesh. what people will believe if it contains the word factcheck or snopes.
Yall are gullible as hell
Quote from: flintauqua on November 16, 2011, 10:01:23 PM
I do not believe having a representative democracy, aka democratic republic, form of government denies liberty. Having a more pure republic structure of which you often post does deny liberty to all but a few. If the founding fathers form of republic is what you are advocating, then you're saying that only land owning white males should have the right to vote.
Thats fine by me.
Uh, based on the actual intent, what liberty would be denied ME based on the real facts of that article?
Don't put words in my mouth. How do you think those expensive wars and all the security stuff is being paid for? I pay my share of taxes and more than many. I grumble too, but I also make it my business to know how the money is used. It could always be more efficiently spent, but I'm sure I could find what I might call waste in your own paychecks too. Not my business though. Have you ever lived in any other country to see what other systems are like? Try it! Perhaps you would be more appreciative of our imperfect system if you paid their "taxes".
Quote from: srkruzich on November 16, 2011, 10:25:12 PM
What you posted wasn't fact or even correct information. Those that own the site you used are pawns of soros and this admin. Sheesh. what people will believe if it contains the word factcheck or snopes.
Yall are gullible as hell
Then I guess the National Association of Realtors have been paid off by the left also:
"Q-9: Will the $250,000/$500,000 exclusion on the sale of a principal residence continue to apply?
A: Yes. Any gain from the sale of a principal residence that is less than $250,000 (individual) or $500,000 (joint return) will continue to be excluded from the income tax. The new 3.8% tax will NOT apply to this excluded amount of the gain.
Q-10: Will the 3.8% tax apply to any part of the gain on the sale of a principal residence?
A: The new Medicare tax would apply only to any gain realized that is more than the $250K/$500K existing primary home exclusion (known as the "taxable gain"), and only if the seller has AGI above the $200K/$250K AGI thresholds.
So, for example, if the taxable gain was $30,000 and a married couple had AGI (which would include the taxable gain) of $180,000, the 3.8% tax would not apply because AGI is less than $250,000. If that same couple had AGI of $290,000, then the application of the 3.8% tax would be subject to the same formula described above. The $30,000taxable gain on the sale would be less than the $40,000 excess above $250,000 AGI, so the $30,000 gain would be subject to the new 3.8% tax."
http://www.realtor.org/small_business_health_coverage.nsf/Pages/health_ref_faq_med_tax
Just what is in that tea the far-right have been serving?
Thanks Charlie, that is basically how my Realtor here interprets it. I am going to check with my CPA to get her interpretation.
Quote from: flintauqua on November 16, 2011, 10:01:23 PM
I do not believe having a representative democracy, aka democratic republic, form of government denies liberty. Having a more pure republic structure of which you often post does deny liberty to all but a few. If the founding fathers form of republic is what you are advocating, then you're saying that only land owning white males should have the right to vote.
The founding fathers had it right. Just about anybody and everybody votes now - and more and more are voting for the "free" stuff at the expense our liberty. Certainly landowner white male voters were protective of individual and property rights, instead of creating entitlements, grants, new rights, public schools, more government jobs and a whole lot more.
So the Constitution is fine as long as it protects certain people's rights but not all?
If you want to sit in judgement, at least take a course in Constitutional Law, then go to law school, and eventually become a judge. This land owning white female says nay! This "us" vs "them" attitude sucks eggs.Then some will say, "I won't vote or participate in the process, why bother?" ( except constantly gripe).... No public schools? You'd have the populous even less educated? That figures. Stratification is already happening...will your families be left out? To be successful, one figures out what works and what people need or want and will pay for, and then does it. It sure has worked for me. I've always had at least two if not three jobs. Even now when I'm cutting back, I have good extra income, one project at a time.
I've always said property owners ought to be the ones who vote. They themselves will control government best as they have the vested interest in making sure it is not runaway and spendthrift.
So you'd eliminate all young voters who don't yet own homes or property? My nieces then couldn't vote. One is married and rents a house and the other works but still lives with her parents.
Um, reminds me of the "I'm old enough to die for my country in the military but not old enough to drink." So they are old enough to die for their country, but can't vote because they are young and don't own land or a home yet? How about career military?
I could give you lots more examples...wealthy people whose property is "owned" by their company or people who have downsized or who put everything in a trust. How about when you have a mortgage? You don't really own the home, the lender does!
I'd be fine, I own everything outright and have for a long time. Most people in their prime can't say that.
Many people who travel for a living don't own any property, they rent somewhere for periods of time, yet they are well educated productive people. You would deny them voting rights? Not so easy is it?
Thats a choice they all make. It is a fact that most young folks do not have a clue as to what it will take to even cast a vote. One of the biggest problems in this country was shown at the last election. They voted for the "messiah" so to speak, cause he was young, black and fit their idea of so called social justice is all about. THe fact is that once you get age on you usually, most forget about the myth of social justice and look to put in place those who will promote equal justice.
Major difference. Once you have realized what it takes to own property, and by realized i mean get the property, you are darn sure going to protect what you have worked hard for to get that property and your going to want controls on your government to prevent them from taking that property from you. THose who don't own property dont give a rats ass. It doesn't affect them negatively if govt taxes you out of your property. Simple economics.
I pay taxes on two properties, and quite frankly the reason my taxes are so high is the ones who don't own property vote to raise the damn taxes so they can have all these luxuries like ballfields, funds to buy balls and equipment, schools, all paid for by me. I don't utilize any of that crap, never have so why do i have to fund it?
If the same people who had their houses lost to foreclosure had the education, sense and understanding to vote, then they wouldn't have lost their homes either now would they? So they should have lost their voting rights too? Now that would be popular! People can and should, but often don't take the time to get into the details. They don't pay attention to the fact that life HAS small print, let alone take the time to read it. So the is the American public stupid as some of you say...or too smart to be fooled as others of you say...your choice. Or how about some of both? ;)
Quote from: Diane Amberg on November 18, 2011, 02:36:43 PM
If the same people who had their houses lost to foreclosure had the education, sense and understanding to vote, then they wouldn't have lost their homes either now would they?
You said it. Not me. IF they had the sense to not get in a mortgage they couldnt' afford to begin with they would still have their homes.
QuoteSo they should have lost their voting rights too? Now that would be popular!
IF it were like it was at the creation of our constitution, the ones that lost their homes would either be A) smart enough not to get so deep in debt or B) renting and not voting to begin with. Come on diane, most of those who lost their homes were never qualified to own a home to begin with. NONE OF THEM had 20% of their money invested in a home. IT IS RARE TO FIND folks that can take a 100% financed loan and they have the disclipine to weather hard times and pay their mortgage. I bought my home 100% financed by owner in 2007. I haven't missed 1 payment. I have done without food, i have done without tv, radio, luxuries that most people take for granted, but i haven't missed 1 payment.
Yes i own another property no i can't sell it yet. when i do sell it, i'll just pay off my house! Shrug. Smart business is all that is.
QuotePeople can and should, but often don't take the time to get into the details. They don't pay attention to the fact that life HAS small print, let alone take the time to read it. So the is the American public stupid as some of you say...or too smart to be fooled as others of you say...your choice. Or how about some of both? ;)
Too stupid. Sorry but i have very little hope for Americans these days. MAYBE losing their homes, jobs, ect will grow them up fast and make them see what the schools were so piss poor in teaching them. Preparation, education, and vision all are required to make it in this world
BTW if public schools want to teach kids and give them a gift in life, instead of wasting money on sports and extracurricular activities, they ought to use that money to teach classes like balancing checkbooks, how to shop poor, how to start and build a business, how to invest wisely in markets, How to do a budget, and save money even in hard times.
Seriously this is what homeschooled kids do have over their counterparts.
My kids actually did learn to balance checkbooks, keep a budget, go shopping for food etc. in Middle School. I've taught both of my boys to shop for bargains at the store, it's a necessity these days!
Lisa
Quote from: farmgal67357 on November 18, 2011, 06:34:30 PM
My kids actually did learn to balance checkbooks, keep a budget, go shopping for food etc. in Middle School. I've taught both of my boys to shop for bargains at the store, it's a necessity these days!
Lisa
thats kool but middle school is a start really, i'm talking bout highschoolers. The biggest disaster that we have yet to see is the coming disaster that our youth are building. The amount of debt they incur in the first 10 years of being on their own. Starting with this idiocy of going after student loans. There is no reason for them to do that. IF you use your noggin a bit, you can go as cheap as 14 k on a 2 year as deg and get a job with a company that will pay for the rest of your education. Thats one road. Scholarships abound abundantly. But its too much work to compete for them. I've even gotten scholarships in my education later on in life at 40 years old. Won the dang things because there was no competition. Write an essay on something, your dog or cat or mom ain't going to cut it. You have to do something intriguing spectacular and use some imagination!
There are some that have it. Some that don't, but NONE are incapable of not having an imagination or putting in the work to get these scholarships. I made a bet with one of my boys who said he'd never get a scholarship cause we didn't have money. LOL i told him huh, thats the reason for scholarships. I told him i could even get one and he said nahh your to old and you haven't been in school for years. Got a 1000 dollar one 3 months later, the bet was that he had to research a topic for 3 months then write an essay on what facts he found and then make it interesting to read, not just spew facts but tell it in a story. He submitted it to a scholarship contest and won it. Got 5k to go to school on.
It takes work. Unfortunately i have seen those who piss away their education quite often. All you gotta do is go to bulter community college and watch what happens. Theres tons of students at the start of a semester, and by the end of a semester the 30+ crowd outnumber the 18-30 year olds by 2 to 1. In the start the youngins outnumber the older folks by 2 to 1
Its pretty damn sad to see this too! :(
Steve, you are making huge generalizations based on a few sad but true examples. ...none of which have anything to do with voting. The student loan situation is very serious and very sad but has nothing to do with voting.
You are one of the ones talking about our rights and freedoms being taken away but you want to take away people's right to vote? You think you have good reasons. Sorry, doesn't cut it. People have the legal right to be less "smart" than you (or me) and not be euthanized!
What does your son's scholarship have to do with people voting? People make choices every day ,some good and some bad.
People who don't win scholarships must be too stupid to be allowed to vote? By extension that can get pretty silly but someone who is good with words could decide to show how it makes good sense. Professional bloggers do that kind of thing with false statements and twisted logic every day.
How about if someone decides that people who smoke are obviously too stupid to be allowed to vote?...or have a driver's license? or drink alcohol? How far do you want to go? Sure, people who drink at all can't vote or own a home. How silly can we go? ;)
Quote from: Diane Amberg on November 18, 2011, 10:39:49 PM
Steve, you are making huge generalizations based on a few sad but true examples. ...none of which have anything to do with voting. The student loan situation is very serious and very sad but has nothing to do with voting.
Sure it does, these idiots vote! They are too stupid to finish what they start, so we are going to give them a dangerous power and allow stupidity to vote? Hell might ought to tie voting to education.
Got a better idea though. how about everyone keeps their 1 vote then anyone who graduates gets an extra vote to cast, then everyone who completes 2 years in college gets 2 votes, 4 years, 4votes and on, and iff your a property owner, you get 1 vote. IF you write a check every year to the IRS, 1 vote for every 5k in taxes you pay.
Now that sounds like a real plan!
Hmm...and how much taxpayer money would that cost to keep track of? And here we think the Gov't is too much in our business as it is! Maybe the ones who are too stupid to suit you shouldn't be allowed to have children either...solve two problems at the same time. ::)