Equity Tax of 3.8% in the Health Care Bill

[briansd1]

I like it the old, pre 1997 way, when if you didn’t buy a replacement property, you’d have to pay capital gain on the full amount.

Back then, only knowledgeable people flipped houses and capital was better allocated to more productive industries. Housing, after it’s constructed is not productive.

[DWCAP]

[quote=AK]snopes.com declares this one “mostly false”:

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

The 3.8% applies to capital gains after the $500K capital gains threshold for selling a residence … I doubt that any Piggs find themselves in this enviable position … and if you do, congratulations, but you should be getting your financial advice from professionals 🙂

I’d be wary of anything that comes out of the OC Register’s editorial section. (And I used to work there.)[/quote]

DUDE, that snoops post was WAY less informative (wrong) than the original post. yah, in most of the country most people will not get hit with the tax. But here in CA, were most 2/2 condos built in the 1980’s go for more than the median house everywhere else, it is relevant, and true.

Plus this tax applys to other passive income, like rents, and not just capital gains.

Not saying it is a terrible thing to tax passive income similar wage income, but it most certainly is a true tax. I have no idea where they got the “mostly False”, except that they chose their example really really carefully to not include the exempetions. This is ‘mostly true’, but dont forget your 250k/500k exemptions.

[DWCAP]

[quote=AK]snopes.com declares this one “mostly false”:

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

The 3.8% applies to capital gains after the $500K capital gains threshold for selling a residence … I doubt that any Piggs find themselves in this enviable position … and if you do, congratulations, but you should be getting your financial advice from professionals 🙂

I’d be wary of anything that comes out of the OC Register’s editorial section. (And I used to work there.)[/quote]

DUDE, that snoops post was WAY less informative (wrong) than the original post. yah, in most of the country most people will not get hit with the tax. But here in CA, were most 2/2 condos built in the 1980’s go for more than the median house everywhere else, it is relevant, and true.

Plus this tax applys to other passive income, like rents, and not just capital gains.

Not saying it is a terrible thing to tax passive income similar wage income, but it most certainly is a true tax. I have no idea where they got the “mostly False”, except that they chose their example really really carefully to not include the exempetions. This is ‘mostly true’, but dont forget your 250k/500k exemptions.

[DWCAP]

[quote=AK]snopes.com declares this one “mostly false”:

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

The 3.8% applies to capital gains after the $500K capital gains threshold for selling a residence … I doubt that any Piggs find themselves in this enviable position … and if you do, congratulations, but you should be getting your financial advice from professionals 🙂

I’d be wary of anything that comes out of the OC Register’s editorial section. (And I used to work there.)[/quote]

DUDE, that snoops post was WAY less informative (wrong) than the original post. yah, in most of the country most people will not get hit with the tax. But here in CA, were most 2/2 condos built in the 1980’s go for more than the median house everywhere else, it is relevant, and true.

Plus this tax applys to other passive income, like rents, and not just capital gains.

Not saying it is a terrible thing to tax passive income similar wage income, but it most certainly is a true tax. I have no idea where they got the “mostly False”, except that they chose their example really really carefully to not include the exempetions. This is ‘mostly true’, but dont forget your 250k/500k exemptions.

[DWCAP]

[quote=AK]snopes.com declares this one “mostly false”:

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

The 3.8% applies to capital gains after the $500K capital gains threshold for selling a residence … I doubt that any Piggs find themselves in this enviable position … and if you do, congratulations, but you should be getting your financial advice from professionals 🙂

I’d be wary of anything that comes out of the OC Register’s editorial section. (And I used to work there.)[/quote]

DUDE, that snoops post was WAY less informative (wrong) than the original post. yah, in most of the country most people will not get hit with the tax. But here in CA, were most 2/2 condos built in the 1980’s go for more than the median house everywhere else, it is relevant, and true.

Plus this tax applys to other passive income, like rents, and not just capital gains.

Not saying it is a terrible thing to tax passive income similar wage income, but it most certainly is a true tax. I have no idea where they got the “mostly False”, except that they chose their example really really carefully to not include the exempetions. This is ‘mostly true’, but dont forget your 250k/500k exemptions.

[DWCAP]

[quote=AK]snopes.com declares this one “mostly false”:

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

The 3.8% applies to capital gains after the $500K capital gains threshold for selling a residence … I doubt that any Piggs find themselves in this enviable position … and if you do, congratulations, but you should be getting your financial advice from professionals 🙂

I’d be wary of anything that comes out of the OC Register’s editorial section. (And I used to work there.)[/quote]

DUDE, that snoops post was WAY less informative (wrong) than the original post. yah, in most of the country most people will not get hit with the tax. But here in CA, were most 2/2 condos built in the 1980’s go for more than the median house everywhere else, it is relevant, and true.

Plus this tax applys to other passive income, like rents, and not just capital gains.

Not saying it is a terrible thing to tax passive income similar wage income, but it most certainly is a true tax. I have no idea where they got the “mostly False”, except that they chose their example really really carefully to not include the exempetions. This is ‘mostly true’, but dont forget your 250k/500k exemptions.

[CBad]

Why would you doubt people would be in that position? It’s not that difficult in CA if you bought a while ago and didn’t use your house as an ATM.

[CBad]

Why would you doubt people would be in that position? It’s not that difficult in CA if you bought a while ago and didn’t use your house as an ATM.

[CBad]

Why would you doubt people would be in that position? It’s not that difficult in CA if you bought a while ago and didn’t use your house as an ATM.

[CBad]

Why would you doubt people would be in that position? It’s not that difficult in CA if you bought a while ago and didn’t use your house as an ATM.

[CBad]

Why would you doubt people would be in that position? It’s not that difficult in CA if you bought a while ago and didn’t use your house as an ATM.

[CBad]

[quote=CBad]Why would you doubt people would be in that position? It’s not that difficult in CA if you bought a while ago and didn’t use your house as an ATM.[/quote]

Now I’m confusing myself. Cash out refi would make no difference in this scenario. You would just get hit with the same tax and less profit.

Nevertheless, many people who bought pre bubble in CA would fall into this taxable scenario when selling.

[CBad]

[quote=CBad]Why would you doubt people would be in that position? It’s not that difficult in CA if you bought a while ago and didn’t use your house as an ATM.[/quote]

Now I’m confusing myself. Cash out refi would make no difference in this scenario. You would just get hit with the same tax and less profit.

Nevertheless, many people who bought pre bubble in CA would fall into this taxable scenario when selling.

[CBad]

[quote=CBad]Why would you doubt people would be in that position? It’s not that difficult in CA if you bought a while ago and didn’t use your house as an ATM.[/quote]

Now I’m confusing myself. Cash out refi would make no difference in this scenario. You would just get hit with the same tax and less profit.

Nevertheless, many people who bought pre bubble in CA would fall into this taxable scenario when selling.

[CBad]

[quote=CBad]Why would you doubt people would be in that position? It’s not that difficult in CA if you bought a while ago and didn’t use your house as an ATM.[/quote]

Now I’m confusing myself. Cash out refi would make no difference in this scenario. You would just get hit with the same tax and less profit.

Nevertheless, many people who bought pre bubble in CA would fall into this taxable scenario when selling.

[Author]

Posts