03-20-2012 02:48 PM
Another POV (to balance out the left-leaning FactCheck.org) http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/22/settling-the-q
03-20-2012 05:00 PM
Their findings show that this tax will result in lost job opportunities, a reduction in productivity, losses in gross domestic product, and reductions in household income.
wow/heavy...I guess we'll find out soon enough...
03-21-2012 08:45 AM - edited 03-21-2012 08:52 AM
Well, there's nothing in the FactCheck site that is biased. It gives a pretty clear explanation of the law. The Heritage site is overtly a right wing site, thus having to put it here is, well, silly.
There's some simple math.
1. The change only applies if your AGI (in a nutshell interest on your taxes) is over $200k personally or $250k if filing jointlly. Is that you? No? Then don't worry about it.
2. You have to have a capital gain on your home in excess of $250k. Did you have this? No? Don't worry about it.
3. If the above is you, you get taxed at 3.8%. The benefit of which is that almost everyone will have health insurance and nobody will be getting care that's paid for by your nice expensive private health care premiums.
The Heritage site goes on to whine about other taxes that haven't even been passed yet. Again, there was really no need to paste this in. All they did is restate what FactCheck said and give an appropriate example that applied.
Incidentally, Obama didn't write the bill, so calling it Obamacare is rather silly.
03-23-2012 06:02 PM
In short, if you weren't going to get taxed on selling your primary residence, you probably still won't. If you are going to get taxed upon the sale, then expect 3.8% more.
It's really the rental real estate market that will feel this the most, since the 250K/500K exemption doesn't apply.
03-23-2012 07:28 PM
No one ever wants to pay any additional tax. It's time for the 99% to stand up and say raise the tax on the 1% who have benefited the most since Bush was elected into office.
The alternative to "Obama care" is to continue to let corporations provide health insurance for the working class. Wake up people, you're Fu@King enslaved to the corporations if you want / need health insurance. That's certainly not the best solution and it has left many people without any access to healthcare. Wouldn't it be nice to have the freedom to quit your job without being worried about the cost of Cobra insurance coverage?
It's about freaking time the government provided basic health insurance for the populace and if people want "better" healthcare they can add additional coverage on top of it. That's how it works in other (civilized) countries.
03-25-2012 08:13 AM
Agreed, the Heritage site's end-of-the-world conclusion on a 3.8% tax that will affect a small percentage of people, people with enough resources to live comfortably after paying it, is comical. To add to DW's post... the bill is forcing reform in the insurance industry, which is unlikely to hurt the economy. It's doubtful the Heritage site's analysis took into account any of the gains of the bill, and there will be lots.
04-02-2012 05:08 PM
As a father of a deaf daughter with a heart condition that was just able to apply for health care during WA states open enrollment for kids under 19 with preexisting conditions thanks to THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT! , I don't care about your fox news catch phrases. My daughter didn't make bad life choices or drop out of school so she couldn't afford to pay for health care, she could not get coverage because she was born deaf with a heart condition, oh and she six. If I was ever in a position to buy and sale a $500,000+ house when it sales I will pay some tax on it to make sure kids with heart condition or cancer or what ever preexisting condition they are born with can have healthcare. That's whats up with that!
04-02-2012 05:38 PM
Actually, it's a pretty stupid tax. It's meandering and chock full of exemptions for this and that. Heck, it's just plain annoying and confusing. If you want to raise money on the wealthy, simply raise the income tax rates. Sticking a new fee or tax at every possible situation increases paperwork, not meaningful increases in revenue.
Even if you agree with the place the money is going - a whole, seperate debate - it's just stupid to run around and try to collect all sorts of various tax rates on every financial transaction known to mankind. It's a waste of time on the payee and for the enforcement.