cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: David Kruse on Obamacare

Obama was never going to do any of those things without the flexability of not facing another election. If he, Nan, and Harry are reinstated you ain't seen nothin yet. A conservartive congress is our best hope. If not we look like Spain and Greece. Well, we will look like Spain and Greece if the repubs sweep any way. The 12% [unions] are fixin to go wild.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: OH Yeah

A $38K tax on a $1 million sale will put them into poverty. I would be hyperventilating if I were you!

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: David Kruse on Obamacare

You will have tp show us that in the act and, GOOD LUCK with that because it doesn't exist.  You're being spun by the internet!  LOL

Highlighted
Advisor

Say what? Spain and Greece?

Did we stop issuing our own currency and go on the yen or juan something? 

 

Looks like it was OK for most red-blooded American members of the Church oft he Later Day NFL for the unions to prevail.  Scott Walker, no less, declared that it was absolutely essential that the more skilled, best trained and experienced workers get back on te job immediately, pay and benefit increases be damned. 

 

Still for the life of me can't figure out how the state that gave us the LaFollettes, Proxmire and Feingold could have puked up Walker and Ryan.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Say what? Spain and Greece?


@bruce MN wrote:

Did we stop issuing our own currency and go on the yen or juan something? 

 

Looks like it was OK for most red-blooded American members of the Church oft he Later Day NFL for the unions to prevail.  Scott Walker, no less, declared that it was absolutely essential that the more skilled, best trained and experienced workers get back on te job immediately, pay and benefit increases be damned. 

 

Still for the life of me can't figure out how the state that gave us the LaFollettes, Proxmire and Feingold could have puked up Walker and Ryan.


Guess there never was a controversial call before.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: OH Yeah


@kraft-t wrote:

A $38K tax on a $1 million sale will put them into poverty. I would be hyperventilating if I were you!


 

 

 

This coming from the guy who's constantly crying about a possible cut in his SS payments or medicare coverage.  You are worth millions Don...surely you can take care of yourself. 

 

 

Its nice to see you so willing to spend some other guy's money though.  Typical Dem. 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: OH Yeah

Don is able to support increased taxation because he sincerely believes that he and his extended family, mother...wife....etc..., will continue to get more from the government that what they pay into the government through medicare coverage, social security payments in excess of what they paid in, nursing home assistance through trusts that protect the principal of their land holdings, farm subsidy supports and crop insurance,  etc. People with their nose in the trough do not mind taxes as long as they perceive that there is still a pool of untaxed money in the system to pay their benefits before they and their heirs start to see diminished benefits for themselves. That is the failure of democracy that Jefferson warned us about a couple of hundred years ago.

What Don does not get is that there simply isn't going to be enough money, in the long run, to give everyone excess benefits...that at some point, and it is probably only a decade or so away, the literal SHTF and we get a system where those pulling the cart simply rebel and run away, to the extent they can find someplace to run to. Maybe it is happening already as Bruce suggests and seems to welcome.  Then, we get taxes that take the wealth of guys like Don and distribute it to guys lower on the totem pole. And if you really want to hear something, listen to a democrat when a tax hits them directly, not the guy behind the tree. I have , and its not a pretty sound.

Veteran Advisor

Re: OH Yeah

You guys really don't care about the truth do you?  As long as you can come up with a story that berates Obama, you're happy.  THERE IS NO  3.8% REAL ESTATE TAX  IN THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE BILL!!

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: David Kruse on Obamacare

Find that tax in it.  NOT!!

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: David Kruse on Obamacare

 

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.

We can understand how this misconception got started. The law itself is couched in highly technical language that only a qualified tax expert can fully grasp. (This provision begins on page 33 of the reconciliation bill that was passed and signed into law.) And it does say the tax falls on "net gain … attributable to the disposition of property." That would include the sale of a home. But the bill also says the tax falls only on that portion of any gain that is "taken into account in computing taxable income" under the existing tax code. And the fact is, the first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already. (That exclusion doesn’t apply to vacation homes or rental properties.)

The Joint Committee on Taxation, the group of nonpartisan tax experts that Congress relies on to analyze tax proposals, underscores this in a footnote on page 135 of its report on the bill. The note states: "Gross income does not include … excluded gain from the sale of a principal residence."

And just to be sure, we checked with William Ahern, director of policy and communications for the nonprofit, pro-business Tax Foundation. "Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill," Ahern told us, "but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple)."

So there you have it. The sort of people who would have to pay the tax might include, for example:

  • A single executive making $210,000 a year who sells his $300,000 ski condo for a $50,000 profit. His tax on the sale of that vacation home would amount to $1,900, in addition to the capital gains tax he would have paid anyway.
  • An "empty nester" couple with combined income of over $250,000 a year who sell their $1 million primary residence to move to smaller quarters. If they cleared $600,000 on the sale, they would be taxed on $100,000 of the profit (the amount over the half-million-dollar exclusion). Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.

However, a typical home sale would not incur any tax. In March, for example, half of all existing homes sold for $170,700 or less, according to the National Association of Realtors. Obviously, none of those sales could possibly generate a $250,000 profit, and so none would be subject to the tax.

Thus, for the vast majority, the 3.8 percent tax won’t apply. The Tax Foundation, in a report released April 15, said the new tax on investment income (including real estate) "will hit approximately the top-earning two percent of families" when it takes effect in 2013.