Sunday, July 3, 2011

Taxing the Sale of Your Home

BY: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


From the inbox at RN USA. I am sure there are many who remain unaware of this provision of ObamaCare.

E-mail is reproduced here in full with appropriate linkage.
Do 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. Just thought you
should know.

SALES TAX TO GO INTO EFFECT 2013 (Part of HC Bill)
REAL ESTATE SALES TAX

So, this is "change you can believe in"?

Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate
transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new
taxes don't kick in until 2013 if you sell your $400,000 home, there will be
a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to mess with the retiring generation who
often downsize their homes. Does this stuff 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.

The information presented in this above e-mail is partially true. It is however misleading because the specifics of the provision are left out. Thus leading people to believe the 3.8% tax applies to ALL home sales.

Please visit the following links for additional information:
GOP.gov
House of Representatives Committee on the Budget
FactCheck.ORG
Snopes.com

Just putting the information in it's proper context.

Rational Nation's position is that the 3.8% tax on the sale of your home, regardless of your home's selling price or your economic standing is both ludicrous and without ethical justification. Just another indication of the progressives march to redistribute wealth by arbitrary means. Another example of Obama's class warfare. But the President has been lacking in ethical justification for some time now.

22 comments:

  1. Look for thousands of such taxes sneaked into various laws. The statist beast is hungry. It has sucked 25% of the economy into it's voracious maw, and it wants more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the problem with this tax is the same problem with the income tax when introduced into law. it was promoted as being a tax only on the very rich also. can we say that it is still true as promoted or are the poor subject to income tax now?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess you think the tax policies of the Republicans (that favor the rich and corporations) is not the same form of redistributing the money. Every tax break, is paid for by the American taxpayer.
    I am not anon, but you delete me anyways. Proof that you practice censorship, if someone's ideas don't meet yours. Now who will you accuse of being anon? You have been wrong twice, lets see how far you will go.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some of the "rich" people the GOP helped were lower to middle class retirees living on income from invetsments made during their working years. They were already hurting under Bush. Two years of Obama and some of those people now qualify for food stamps.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tom - I know who anon is having figured it out by the slow and painstaking process of elimination.

    If you feel I have wrongly accused you please accept my apology during this process.

    I do not censor. I merely make a proprietors decision, which is my right, to delete comments that have absolutely zero value. The same as you do on your site.

    I indeed wish you and I could engage in thoughtful dialogue based on rational premises. To that end I'll always publish your comments.

    Other than that they will be deleted. As will comments from other individuals {anon or otherwise} that have no connection to reality and/or obviously lack the possibility intellectually honest dialogue.

    The choice is yours Tom, it always has been.

    Thanks for visiting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Griper - I fully understand your analogy. It is true that all taxes, as limited in scope and as short term as initially envisioned, tend to become permanent. unfortunately, at least in the view of some, they grow well beyond the original and perhaps justified scope.

    Eventually even the middle guy and the lower economic rung of the ladder is affected.

    History is a good teacher, is it not?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Georges - Well said. There is much blame if you will to go around.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Si;ver - This is indeed my fear As it is of many.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tom said: "I guess you think the tax policies of the Republicans (that favor the rich and corporations)"...

    You started with a false assumption. AFTER the Bush tax policies were enacted (and he's a Republican) the following is true:

    1) US corporate taxes are among the highest in the world. Read here for the facts
    2) The rich pay more as a percentage of their income than the non-rich.
    3) The rich as a group pay a very large share of the taxes. Specifically, in 2006 (well after the Bush tax cuts for the middle class were enacted), the top 20% of earners paid 86% of all income taxes. Also, Over 25 years, in fact, the percentage of the federal income tax bill paid by the wealthiest Americans has doubled, even as it has shrunk for all others

    These are the actual Republican policies, and they don't favor the rich or corporations at all, no matter how you look at it.

    If your claim were true, then US corporate taxation would be low compared to other countries (not high) and the rich would pay almost nothing in taxes, instead of the lion's share. But none of this is true at all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tom also said:

    "Every tax break, is paid for by the American taxpayer."

    Paid a negative amount, actually. Because every tax break means that American tax payers have more of their own money. They get to keep it; less is plundered.

    If a mugger steals my wallet but chooses not to steal my shoes, my keeping the shoes is not me "paying". Nor is it a gift. This is a very appropriate analogy to those who claim that tax breaks (the government plundering less of your stuff) are some sort of gift.

    Besides, most of the people who kept their own money under the Bush tax breaks are middle class. And most of the money that was kept by the people, under this plan, instead of plundered by the ruling elites, was kept by the middle class.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't care about being wrongly accused, just thought I'd stop you from making yourself look silly. The way you talk to people, do you really think I'm the only possibility that would comment as anon?
    The choice is yours RN, always has been. I won't publish political attack comments put on my post about dogs (no connection to reality and/or obviously lack the possibility intellectually honest dialogue).
    You have deleted my comments in the past that were directly related to what you wrote, you just refused to print them. Since you attacked my blog, you take the first step with a congenial comment ( I will lift the blacklist)on my 4th of July post. Disagree all you want, but leave the smut talk at this blog.

    Dmarks:

    Facts and statistics can be used in many different ways.
    As the President said corporate taxes and taxes on the rich are lower than they have been in 60 years. The percentage of total federal tax intake by corporations has never been lower. Yet taxes on the middle class have risen steadily since 1968.
    The WW II generation paid taxes at a rate between 65%-90% that is how they were able to build America, pay off WW II debt (including the Marshall plan) and allow for only one worker in a household to work to pay the bills, but have plenty left over for two cars, TV's, vacations, saving, etc.
    Higher taxes do not inhibit growth. Proven back then when taxes were twice as high, but our growth was the best ever in the History of the World.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tom - I never attacked your blog. I also never deleted any comments you made that was relevant to the discussion.

    I don't censor as I am not afraid of, nor concerned with being persuaded or swayed by false positions.

    When the positions are factually stated and have the greater merit I have no problem acknowledging same and even modifying my position.

    If you choose to remain obstinately argumentative and present my readership with false statements with respect to this sight so be it.

    As long as your untruths are respectfully put, have even a modicum of relevancy to my post, they will not be deleted. I simply won't dignify such comment with a response.

    Should you scoose to visit and have a sincere and honest discussion I, as well as my readership will welcome the challenge of wits.

    My blog archives speak for themselves. They are open to the public. Everyone can decidefor themselves whether I am right, wrong, a jerk, a s-hole, or whatever.

    One thing is for certain Tom, I will never again engage in the childlike foolishness you seem to have a definite proclivity to engage in.

    Again, thanks for visiting.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I never heard of you, or met you until one day at Pam's. Having never spoke to me before you started shouting and swearing at me. I figured fine, I can take it and give it out also. Somehow it was fine for you, but not for me. I don't accept that. My blog is also open to all and the archives show what you did and shows those (Sue, Leslie and others) came to my defense. It's all there, so don't accuse me of lying. You never discuss, you never answer question, you just make statements that rile people up. That's the dictionary definition of a troll.
    I offered, you refused.
    That's the way it always is with you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Okay Tom, I see how it is with you. You wish to continue with your childish and untruthful ways. Fine by me. I have nothing to prove to you or your progressive friends.

    Have a great Independence Day and do be safe if your on the road driving.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tom said: "The percentage of total federal tax intake by corporations has never been lower."

    Still, they are very high compared to other countries. That is a situation that forces companies to leave this country. And it has a catastrophic effect on the jobs picture.

    "Higher taxes do not inhibit growth."

    I strongly disagree. Taxation policies are ALWAYS government disincentives. Remember the Victorian window tax: it resulted in houses with no windows.

    "back then when taxes were twice as high, but our growth was the best ever in the History of the World."

    There were a lot of other differences.

    And also don't forget, that your 1950s paradise was also a time of Jim Crow, before the women's lib movement, and other changes. And more importantly, before Japan started to build cars that were a lot better than the Detroit products.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Paradise is your word, not mine.
    It is Historical proof (there are other examples in US History) that what the Republicans claim (higher taxes inhibit growth) is false.
    A more recent example would be the Clinton Presidency. He raised taxes and had great growth. People prospered, 23 million jobs, and a balanced budget, the first in decades.
    I disagree that Japan made better cars. They made cheaper cars that got more gas millage. Gas millage is not the only gauge of a good car.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tom - Clinton just came out calling for a REDUCTION in corporate tax rates. Go figure!

    The The Japanese did in fact make better cars for a period of time. Most notably during the 70's and 80's. Since America has caught up in quality. Significantly by using Japanese quality methods. Or more accurately stated by FINALLY using Deming's quality and productivity methods US companies ignored after WW II and Japan readily bought into.

    Better late than never I guess. Too bad it wasn't until Japan started kicking our economic a** that we got on board.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry, Tom. Clinton did NOT balance the budget. He ran constant deficits. He did have the lowest in years, but he always ran the economy in the red.

    RN said: "The The Japanese did in fact make better cars for a period of time."

    They still do. I've been watching this closely for decades.

    "Most notably during the 70's and 80's."

    And now too.

    "Since America has caught up in quality."

    This has not happened yet. The gap narrows some, but this has not happened. Check Consumer Reports. Most models by Toyota, Honda and Subaru have much better reliability than most GM and Ford models. Ford and GM only have a smattering of reliable models, as opposed to most from the Japanese companies. Even Hyundai has passed by Ford and GM.

    Chrysler STILL sells the worst cars sold in North America.

    "Significantly by using Japanese quality methods."

    There has been some adaptation, but not a lot. One difference is that most "Big 3" plants are unionized. Most Japanese plants aren't. This means that the Big 3 plants are badly burdened by having to overpay people, and are prevented from firing bad workers and effectively managing them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. dmarks - I must acknowledge that your statements with respect to US auto's are more representative of reality than mine.

    I was reminded by your comment here of a statement by one of the Big Three CEO's back in the nineties who said, and I paraphrase, 'I am proud to announce that our best cars are now as good as the Japanese's worst cars.'

    Hugh Williamson, a professor of Economic History at the University of Wisconsin, Stout told me this when he was at my plant teaching SPC {statistical process control} to the workforce. he was also a quality and productivity improvement consultant to the company I was managing for at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Republican leaders agree Clinton's last budget would have had a surplus, but Bush blew that 9 months after he took office. They should know, they helped write that budget.

    Just as Obama worked his first year under Bush's last budget, so Bush worked under Clinton's last budget. Yet Republicans blamed Obama for that years deficit. Can't have it both ways.

    If you are talking about today's car, I agree. But give me an all steel, big engine, smooth ride, convertible made by GM in the 1950', or 1960's, that's a car. A machine of high performance.
    If you but a foreign car for gas millage, good for you. What about buying American and helping our bad economy?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tom - Bush is gone, the economy is now Obama's. Time to get over Bush. Obama now sits in the big chair.

    By the way, I agree Bush was horrible money manager and carries much responsibility for the increase in the deficit and national debt while in office. Up through the first year of the Obama administration. It has been O Obama's baby since then.

    Bush should not have gotten us into Iraq. Now please check out the Obama military exploits, it's all available.

    Give me a 1962 Chevy Corvette with 327hp, four barrel and a performance tyranny. Oh yeah, those were the good old days.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just responding to Dmarks comment.
    Blame goes where the facts of History record.
    If we don't learn from our mistakes (not a blame game) we will repeat them.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.