San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis

If you're making $250k profit on a home sale AFTER expenses, do you think that making $9500 less will really keep you from selling? Get real. This isn't the end of the world.

"Not to mention how this bill could create higher rates of unemployment due to the costs that will be imposed on small business that will "DIS-incentivize" small business from hiring."

Did El Rushbo tell you this? How exactly does a sales tax on a small number of home sales decrease small business hiring?

Repost of this thread.
http://piggington.com/ot_obamacare_decis...

The 3.8% surcharge isn't nearly as bad as the second tax: 0.9% Medicare surcharge tax on earned income

http://www.cliftonlarsonallen.com/inside...

It will really suck for self employed people. Because while it's conceivable that while W2 salaried people who make over 200k/250k household might less common (I disagree anyway) say in the tech field, it's pretty easy for someone to hit the 200k/250k as self-employed contractor...

So remember, if you have large capital gains distribution (like you need to sell a boat load of stock/stock options), sell a house with large appreciation not shielded by owner occupancy exemption etc, 2012 is the year to do it without getting hit with the higher taxes.

I'm telling you folks. I use to penny pinch... No more. Spend and enjoy. Because if you don't, our Robin Hood government will do it for you, whether you like it or not.

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/w...

Another good article on the tax consequences of Obamacare. How financially successful have to carry the load for everyone else.

It's always easy for those who don't have to pay a tax to be in favor of others having to pay it.

There are additional costs to small business that have nothing to do with this 3.8% tax.

The problem with the "it's just a little bit" argument is that it always ignores the fact that it's a little bit MORE. It's another step toward total confiscation of everyone's income. Look at the history of income tax as an example. The forst rates were between 1 and 7 percent. It only took 3 years for that to be doubled, and has been steadily increased ever since. Add to that all of the other taxes we are forced to pay, and it's estimated the average person pays over 50% (50 f-ing %!!). So, don't use the politicians normal tag line of "it's just a little bit".

Duplicate post

It's always easy for those who don't have to pay a tax to be in favor of others having to pay it.

Not in favor nor against, just indifferent. It's not the end of the world either way, and if the government is going to provide services, taxing is better than printing money or cutting other services to pay for them.

Printing money is like a hidden tax, so there really no difference between one kind of tax over the other. At least with printing money, everyone get to share the pain. It always is easier to tax the other guy.

How do you propose to pay for government services? Magic?

Printing money is an unpredictable tax, and unpredictable inflation is bad for business. Not to mention that it favors spenders over savers, and Americans save too little as it is.

That estimate would probably be no closer to reality than an estimate of 10%. 10% sounds a lot better. I'd go with that.

Do you have an estimate that you didn't just pull out of your ass?

Why does the government need more and more and more funding year after year?

No, it came from the same place yours came from.

Why does the government need more and more and more funding year after year?

Because the liberals want it to actually provide useful services.

The conservatards, OTOH, bleed the coffers dry with things like the War on Drugs, incarcerating 1% of the population, and military adventures in Middle Eastern pestholes that aren't worth a single cent. Personally, I'd be all for the people responsible for Iraq II being locked up for treason and perjury.

And yes, I realize that SD's economy is heavily based on the military.

spdrun: If it were only true that the liberals weren't just as complicit as the conservatives.

The creation of the modern US National Security State actually dates back to WWII and owes much to FDR and his support of the OSS (which eventually became the CIA.) FDR recognized as early as 1942 that the US would have to shift focus to the USSR after the defeat of the Axis powers and began tasking intelligence resources to the OSS in advance of the "Big Three" conference in Teheran in late 1943. FDR also understood the geopolitical/geo-strategic importance of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and began courting the Saudis around the same time: http://cambridgeforecast.wordpress.com/2...

This meeting, ostensibly to discuss the Palestinian issue, also included FDR securing oil rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco) and sea lane rights for the US. These oil rights were deemed of such critical importance that FDR flew directly to this meeting following the Yalta Conference. The Saudi "special" relationship with the US has been in place for nearly 70 years.

The US "balance of power" relationship in these "Middle Eastern pestholes" included deposing the legitimately elected government of Iran in 1953 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat) and enjoyed the full support from both Dems and the GOP. It also included US military and intelligence resources to odious regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

From there, we have LBJ's massive expansion of CIA and NSA "shadow war" capabilities during the Vietnam War, including operations like the Phoenix Program and moving forward to the Carter Administration's drafting of FISA (1978.)

Ronald Reagan was responsible for Iran-Contra, which included illegal drug and gun-running (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Seal) and additional CIA/NSA operations, such as maintaining the Noriega regime (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/28/us/bus...) and all of Noriega's little shenanigans. Here's a fun trivia question: Who was the governor of Arkansas while millions upon millions of dollars of illicit drug gains were being laundered through Mena, Arkansas (the hub of the illegal drug and gun-running scheme)? I'll give you a hint: It was the president who immediately followed Bush the Elder in the White House.

Which brings us to Slick Willie, who really had fun with things like creating the policy of extraordinary rendition, formation of the NSA Echelon/Carnivore program and the issuance of dozens of Executive Orders authorizing "off book" CIA programs designed to further circumvent the Constitution and avoid civilian/press/governmental oversight of said operations.

Of course, shit got really bad under Dubya, Tenet, Cheney and Alberto Gonzales (USAG) with Gitmo, the Patriot Act and creation of JSOC, along with warrantless wiretapping, further expansion of the rendition program and even more erosion of US civil liberties.

Which brings us at last to Obama, who campaigned on closing Gitmo, and dismantling the worse abuses of the Dubya cabal.

Did this happen? Nope. Obama did not dismantle anything and, in fact, continued to further expand and amplify the horrific and lamentable Bush II policies, as well as push for NDAA (Barack Obama signed this law, giving the president -- for the first time in American history -- the power to imprison indefinitely an American citizen "suspected" of "association" (without evidence) with terrorists. This fate comes without charge or trial.) and FISA 2008 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/11....) In addition, under Obama, we now have unauthorized execution of US citizens without due process or any sort of judicial oversight and this little jewel which includes USAG Holder and DNI Clapper: On March 22, reports Engelhardt, Attorney General Eric Holder, our chief law officer, along with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Jr., agreed to "new guidelines allowing the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) ... to hold on to information about Americans in no way known to be connected to terrorism -- about you and me, that is -- for up to five years." Its previous limit was 180 days.

So, while it would be great if we had at least one political party in this country protecting our rights and liberties, the sad fact is that both Dems and Republicans have been cheerfully fucking us out of our (supposedly) Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties for the better part of 70 years.

I'd definitely agree on the treason charges as far as Dubya, Tenet, Cheney and Gonzales go, and I'll raise you Obama, Holder, Clapper and Harold Koh (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...), who was the guy vociferously taking Dubya to task on covert operations and is now fully supporting Obama's use of the same tactics.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Ben Franklin

Are those your only two suggestions (magic or tax the rich)? If you say yes, then there's no point going forward.

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

Those damn pesky numbers.

Doesn't seem like any gain from a home should be tax free.

There's some serious flaws in that calculation.

Just to name a few:

We hear all the time that half of Americans don't pay any income taxes. The top federal rate is currently 35%. In order to use 17% for the "average", that would mean that virtually every dollar of income that go to those that do pay taxes, must be subject to just under the maximum tax. Obviously, that can't be true, since even high income taxpayers still pay lower rates on their income below the top tax bracket. In fact, most people who do pay taxes, don't have a single dollar subject to the maximum rate.

Similar, but even more ridiculous on the state tax. The same 50% of taxpayers who pay no income tax referred to above, presumably pay little or no state tax, so including the maxiumum state tax rate as the average is absurd. It also fails to take into consideration the states that have no income tax or rates substantially lower than 10.1%.

All income is not subject to sales tax. In fact, no income is. Only spending. The caclulation in the link assumes 100% of income is taxed at a relatively high sales tax rate. Effectively impossible, since we've already deducted federal and state income taxes which can't possibly be spent on taxable consumption.

The others aren't near as egregiously wrong. But the last one is pretty funny. It lists estate, inheritance and gift as separate taxes. They are essentially the same thing. And amount to, on average, about $110 per taxpayer. That would be slightly over .1% of annual income for average taxpayers. Additionally, it lists something called "deficit allowance". I'm reasonably sure there is no such thing as a "deficit allowance" tax.

But yeah, facts are pesky. And that link doesn't contain many. It's probably theoretically possible for some people to pay >50% in taxes. Whether it actually happens very often is pretty unlikely.

Are those your only two suggestions (magic or tax the rich)? If you say yes, then there's no point going forward.

Personally, I'm for universal, public-option health care, paid for by a percentage tax on ALL incomes. But that's just me.

Personally, I like to leave it up to the people to decide whether they want health insurance or not. If they choose not to buy insurance, then they have to live with the consequences of not being treated in ER except for extreme circumstances.

However, I'm sympathetic to the idea of single payer system. If we do that, we should just extend Medicare to all and raise the Medicare tax for all to accommodate the extra cost of extending Medicare to all. There's no need to have this ACA.

Why do we need to treat them in the ER even for extreme circumstances if they made the choice to go without insurance? Those extreme circumstances cost us the most bucks.

I agree single payer is the best system, but remember, that's socialism!

Me too.

That would be impossible to pass in DC given the "class warfare" and "socialist agenda" type arguments against it. We are left with Obamacare as the only alternative. Which of course in its core is a Republican product the the GOP has rejected purely because Obama has his hands on it. So there are no other options, we have in essence painted ourselves into a retorical corner.

Let CA and other blue states secede and run their own affairs. Yeah, yeah, civil war. Different times now, and I doubt if DC would want to risk a nuclear civil war anyway.

"If they choose not to buy insurance, then they have to live with the consequences of not being treated in ER except for extreme circumstances."

No insurance and No cash = No service. Why should hospitals provide service under any conditions for people who refuse to take personal responsibiity for their probable needs? Gas, grass, or ass... nobody rides for free.

Because we're not a bunch of heartless SOB? I'd like to see data behind what's the % of expenditure for uninsured people between people coming for non real emergency vs extreme emergency. It will cost thousands, even if they come in for a common cold. I agree that extreme circumstances cost more per visit. However, I think the amount of people coming into the ER for non emergency out weigh the real emergency.

I never said it's the best system. I just said I'm sympathetic about it and wouldn't mind if it's implemented. But I want the cost to be spread across everyone, so that everyone will pay for the service they will receive. Just like Medicare. Which is why I would rather have Medicare extended to everyone and increase the Medicare tax instead of the ACA.

What's the point of tossing around the word socialism?

Why is socialism such a dirty word anyway? I'm a socialist on some issues, a libertarian on others, and I'm G-d damn proud of my views.