America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by Stinkdyr. 30 replies replies.
Obamacare Home Sales Tax on you
Stinkdyr Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
HOME SALES TAX

I thought you might find this interesting, -- maybe even SICKENING!


The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, -- before it takes effect.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% capital gains tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 gain in your home's value. Heck, it might not have really gained in value, but the gubment just keeps printing paper $$ to inflate the price of your home so you get to pay more tax when you sell it. Yay!

When did this happen? It's in the health care bill, -- and it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn't come to light until 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% tax on cap gains above 250k for singles/500k married couples, including gays.



Aint Socialism grand? And cheap?

Herfing
FuzzNJ Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Stinkdyr wrote:
That's $3,800 on a $100,000 gain in your home's value.

Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% tax on cap gains above 250k for singles/500k married couples, including gays.




Soooo, the example of 100k gain isn't even a proper example as it wouldn't be subject to the tax?
Stinkdyr Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
A $100k gain above the exemption level would be subject to the tax.

Is that clear?

Herfing
DrMaddVibe Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,381
Stinkdyr wrote:
A $100k gain above the exemption level would be subject to the tax.

Is that clear?

Herfing



It's that new math that throws him...confused with new reading. Don't reply to his messages...he has to start making dinner!
FuzzNJ Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Stinkdyr wrote:
A $100k gain above the exemption level would be subject to the tax.

Is that clear?

Herfing


Not in the original chain email you posted, no.

"Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% tax on cap gains above 250k for singles/500k married couples, including gays."

That sentence means that if the cap gains are above 250k for singles or 500k for couples filing jointly, then it's subject to the tax. 100k is not above that threshold.

Now, that being said, the entire thing is wrong anyway. Sorry, there are numbers and facts there and everything. Might not be as authoritative as a chain email, but whatcha gonna do?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions. This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill.

First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households. Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount. As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review:
In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold.

Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners" — if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home.
For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit. Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross income profits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale). The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser:
• a) The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level.
• b) The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home.
In case (a), the dollar figure would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000.

In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion).

The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900. (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.)

The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount. In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,381
FuzzNJ wrote:
Not in the original chain email you posted, no.



It was CLEARLY there.

You really might want to look into your 2nd favorite website and get back with us. They're political hacks with an agenda!
raymallen Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
That's only applicable to any capital gains that you made on the resale of your home. if you bought it at 500k sold at 600k and your income is below 150k than you are exempt from the tax. These kind of articles are so deceiving, that's why so many people in America live in fear. It's like they take everything on Fox or MSNBC face value.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,381
raymallen wrote:
That's only applicable to any capital gains that you made on the resale of your home. if you bought it at 500k sold at 600k and your income is below 150k than you are exempt from the tax. These kind of articles are so deceiving, that's why so many people in America live in fear. It's like they take everything on Fox or MSNBC face value.



Don't know why...it's right there in the details. Then again, the mess we're in is because a whole lot of people that should've NEVER been allowed to get a home loan got one!
Stinkdyr Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
Thank crikey Fuzzy is here to absorb flack for the illiberal left as they raise taxes on us.

Herfing
raymallen Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Don't know why...it's right there in the details. Then again, the mess we're in is because a whole lot of people that should've NEVER been allowed to get a home loan got one!


True that brother. But when are people going to start taking responsibility for their own actions? When a robber steals something he goes to jail for what he did. The person he stole from isn't wrong for having expensive items. Those who took loans when they couldn't afford it should take responsibility instead of blaming banks.
Stinkdyr Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
raymallen wrote:
True that brother. But when are people going to start taking responsibility for their own actions? When a robber steals something he goes to jail for what he did. The person he stole from isn't wrong for having expensive items. Those who took loans when they couldn't afford it should take responsibility instead of blaming banks.


Absolutely spot on. But people and gubments don't like to take responsibility for their own actions.
So the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill. Over and over again.

fog
DadZilla3 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Stinkdyr wrote:
When did this happen? It's in the health care bill, -- and it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn't come to light until 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% tax on cap gains above 250k for singles/500k married couples, including gays.


“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"...- Nancy Pelosi
DrMaddVibe Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,381
raymallen wrote:
True that brother. But when are people going to start taking responsibility for their own actions? When a robber steals something he goes to jail for what he did. The person he stole from isn't wrong for having expensive items. Those who took loans when they couldn't afford it should take responsibility instead of blaming banks.



I was going to paste the link here...I decided it deserved its own thread...

http://www.cigarbid.com/...ed-Too-Fail#post3352553

Details what happens when the people are dealing with a stacked deck!
rfenst Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,233
Let's get some things straight here:

1. $250/$500k usually only applies to gains (profit) on the home where one has "resided" for two year prior to the sale (plus some additional situations unworthy of mention here).

2. If the gain exceeds the $250/$500k limit, then it is income that must be reported on one's Tax Return.

3. The portion of one's Tax Return where the gain is listed is on the Form for capital gains.

4. Capital gains are currently being taxed at 15%.

5. None of this applies to any homes other than one's residence. It does not pertain to investment property or rental homes. Just residences where one has resided for two year prior to the date of sale.

6. If what is being discussed here is another tax in addition to the capital gains tax, we may have something to discuss concerning an increase in taxes.

7. On the other hand, if the rate has actually been adjusted downward from 15% to 3.8%, that would seem like a good thing to those who favor decreased taxes.

dpnewell Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
^Well if Fuzz's post is acurate, it's an additional tax, but will only affect those greedy 1% ers.
NJ Navy Chief Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 08-25-2011
Posts: 913
dpnewell wrote:
^Well if Fuzz's post is acurate, it's an additional tax, but will only affect those greedy 1% ers.


And ceegar hoarders! Sarcasm
pgje51 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2006
Posts: 5,013

Distinguishing the impact of Obama Care...

A man goes into the hospital for a vasectomy. Before the procedure a
very attractive nurse comes in and takes his vitals, then tells him to
take all of his clothes off.

When he is fully undressed she instructs him to lie down on the
table. The man obeys. The nurse then takes all of her clothes off and
climbs on top and has her way with him.

Upon the completion of the act the man catches his breath and asks
what that was all about. The nurse informs the patient that studies
have shown that before a vasectomy if the man has an ejaculation, he
will be more relaxed and that the cord is easier for the surgeon to
locate and sever, thereby making the surgery safer, more efficient and quicker.
The nurse then wheels the patient to the operating room.

While they are going down the hall the patient looks through a window
to the right and sees six men in a room masturbating.

Curious, the man asks," What are they doing in there"?

The nurse responds, " They're preparing for vasectomies too, but you
have Blue Cross, and they have Obama Care."
Humastronaut Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-26-2011
Posts: 231
Can somebody explain to me why real estate tax would be included in a healthcare bill in the first place. See, this is exactly what is wrong with these idiots. One bill is "secretly" a hundred other things. Does the MSM propaganda machine ever report any of this? Absolutely not. The voters would then actually be educated as to what a fraud these human pieces of garbage actually are.
rfenst Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,233
Humastronaut wrote:
Can somebody explain to me why real estate tax would be included in a healthcare bill in the first place. See, this is exactly what is wrong with these idiots. One bill is "secretly" a hundred other things. Does the MSM propaganda machine ever report any of this? Absolutely not. The voters would then actually be educated as to what a fraud these human pieces of garbage actually are.



Because that is the way it works in most legislatures. Bills should be limited to one single issue.
Stinkdyr Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
And gee, while we are at it, why did they hide the provisions to track your gold purchase and sales transactions in the Maobama Health Care bill too???


You see, it is all about raising taxes on you and your families.

ENJOY !!

Beer
FuzzNJ Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Stinkdyr wrote:
And gee, while we are at it, why did they hide the provisions to track your gold purchase and sales transactions in the Maobama Health Care bill too???


You see, it is all about raising taxes on you and your families.

ENJOY !!

Beer


There is no such provision anymore.
Stinkdyr Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
FuzzNJ wrote:
There is no such provision anymore.



This is beautiful!!!!!!!

Why do I always hear the shrill sound of Eleanor Clift's voice piercing my skull in defense of Maobama whenever Fuzzy pipes up to defend the illiberal left????


LOL LOL LOL
FuzzNJ Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Stinkdyr wrote:
This is beautiful!!!!!!!

Why do I always hear the shrill sound of Eleanor Clift's voice piercing my skull in defense of Maobama whenever Fuzzy pipes up to defend the illiberal left????


LOL LOL LOL


I have no idea why there are voices in your head.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-14/obama-signs-law-repealing-business-tax-reporting-mandate-1-.html

Get your information from somewhere other than right wing radio and Fox.
Stinkdyr Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
^^ I don't listen to Fox and any right wing radio.

And that Bberg article says nothing about the gold tracking provisions, btw.


Beer
FuzzNJ Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Stinkdyr wrote:
^^ I don't listen to Fox and any right wing radio.

And that Bberg article says nothing about the gold tracking provisions, btw.


Beer


That WAS the gold provision. It wasn't tracking, it was at attempt to close a loophole where billions of dollars in tax revenue was not being paid.

If you aren't getting it from right wing radio, you gotta be getting it from right wing something, because it's not true.
dubleuhb Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
FuzzNJ wrote:

If you aren't getting it from right wing radio, you gotta be getting it from right wing something, because it's not true.

So says obama's other son. LMAO
FuzzNJ Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
dubleuhb wrote:
So says obama's other son. LMAO


I'm wrong?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,381
FuzzNJ wrote:
I'm wrong?



Wrong's playing centerfield!Frying pan
Humastronaut Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 07-26-2011
Posts: 231
rfenst wrote:
Because that is the way it works in most legislatures. Bills should be limited to one single issue.



Amen brother!
Stinkdyr Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
FuzzNJ wrote:
That WAS the gold provision. It wasn't tracking, it was at attempt to close a loophole where billions of dollars in tax revenue was not being paid.

If you aren't getting it from right wing radio, you gotta be getting it from right wing something, because it's not true.



Inflation is a gubment created tax. Double taxation.


RE-ELECT NOBODY !!

ram27bat
Users browsing this topic
Guest