Equity Tax of 3.8% in the Health Care Bill

[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.

[AK]

OK, so it is a real tax … but it’s not like it’s the end of the world. It creates a modest tax burden for a small number of people but it doesn’t even come close to rolling back the 1997 capital gains exemption that helped fuel the housing bubble.

Plus this will apply mostly to people who’ve benefited handsomely from low property tax assessments over the years, and only if/when they sell. As a new homeowner I say tax the so-and-sos, because they’re the ones who want to take away my mortgage interest deduction to pay for their Medicare-funded power recliners.

Come on folks, this isn’t the end of the world. I can’t see this as enough to influence sales decisions one way or another …

[AK]

OK, so it is a real tax … but it’s not like it’s the end of the world. It creates a modest tax burden for a small number of people but it doesn’t even come close to rolling back the 1997 capital gains exemption that helped fuel the housing bubble.

Plus this will apply mostly to people who’ve benefited handsomely from low property tax assessments over the years, and only if/when they sell. As a new homeowner I say tax the so-and-sos, because they’re the ones who want to take away my mortgage interest deduction to pay for their Medicare-funded power recliners.

Come on folks, this isn’t the end of the world. I can’t see this as enough to influence sales decisions one way or another …

[AK]

OK, so it is a real tax … but it’s not like it’s the end of the world. It creates a modest tax burden for a small number of people but it doesn’t even come close to rolling back the 1997 capital gains exemption that helped fuel the housing bubble.

Plus this will apply mostly to people who’ve benefited handsomely from low property tax assessments over the years, and only if/when they sell. As a new homeowner I say tax the so-and-sos, because they’re the ones who want to take away my mortgage interest deduction to pay for their Medicare-funded power recliners.

Come on folks, this isn’t the end of the world. I can’t see this as enough to influence sales decisions one way or another …

[AK]

OK, so it is a real tax … but it’s not like it’s the end of the world. It creates a modest tax burden for a small number of people but it doesn’t even come close to rolling back the 1997 capital gains exemption that helped fuel the housing bubble.

Plus this will apply mostly to people who’ve benefited handsomely from low property tax assessments over the years, and only if/when they sell. As a new homeowner I say tax the so-and-sos, because they’re the ones who want to take away my mortgage interest deduction to pay for their Medicare-funded power recliners.

Come on folks, this isn’t the end of the world. I can’t see this as enough to influence sales decisions one way or another …

[AK]

OK, so it is a real tax … but it’s not like it’s the end of the world. It creates a modest tax burden for a small number of people but it doesn’t even come close to rolling back the 1997 capital gains exemption that helped fuel the housing bubble.

Plus this will apply mostly to people who’ve benefited handsomely from low property tax assessments over the years, and only if/when they sell. As a new homeowner I say tax the so-and-sos, because they’re the ones who want to take away my mortgage interest deduction to pay for their Medicare-funded power recliners.

Come on folks, this isn’t the end of the world. I can’t see this as enough to influence sales decisions one way or another …

[AK]

[quote=DWCAP]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.[/quote]

I admit that the original post did discuss the 250/500 exemptions, but the original article (OCRegister editorial) buried it very stealthily at the end, after describing it as an “equity tax.”

[AK]

[quote=DWCAP]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.[/quote]

I admit that the original post did discuss the 250/500 exemptions, but the original article (OCRegister editorial) buried it very stealthily at the end, after describing it as an “equity tax.”

[AK]

[quote=DWCAP]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.[/quote]

I admit that the original post did discuss the 250/500 exemptions, but the original article (OCRegister editorial) buried it very stealthily at the end, after describing it as an “equity tax.”

[AK]

[quote=DWCAP]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.[/quote]

I admit that the original post did discuss the 250/500 exemptions, but the original article (OCRegister editorial) buried it very stealthily at the end, after describing it as an “equity tax.”

[AK]

[quote=DWCAP]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.[/quote]

I admit that the original post did discuss the 250/500 exemptions, but the original article (OCRegister editorial) buried it very stealthily at the end, after describing it as an “equity tax.”

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The real story on the 3,8% tax is not on sale of primary residence.

Its impact will be greater on investment income and sale of investment properties.

If you make 150K and sell a rental property for more than 100K profit, you will be hit.

Currently it hits those making more than 250K. Is this indexed for inflaiton ? Or will it ensnare a bunch of us in 20 years (much like the AMT currently does) because it is not indexed to inflation?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The real story on the 3,8% tax is not on sale of primary residence.

Its impact will be greater on investment income and sale of investment properties.

If you make 150K and sell a rental property for more than 100K profit, you will be hit.

Currently it hits those making more than 250K. Is this indexed for inflaiton ? Or will it ensnare a bunch of us in 20 years (much like the AMT currently does) because it is not indexed to inflation?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The real story on the 3,8% tax is not on sale of primary residence.

Its impact will be greater on investment income and sale of investment properties.

If you make 150K and sell a rental property for more than 100K profit, you will be hit.

Currently it hits those making more than 250K. Is this indexed for inflaiton ? Or will it ensnare a bunch of us in 20 years (much like the AMT currently does) because it is not indexed to inflation?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The real story on the 3,8% tax is not on sale of primary residence.

Its impact will be greater on investment income and sale of investment properties.

If you make 150K and sell a rental property for more than 100K profit, you will be hit.

Currently it hits those making more than 250K. Is this indexed for inflaiton ? Or will it ensnare a bunch of us in 20 years (much like the AMT currently does) because it is not indexed to inflation?

[Author]

Posts