Home › Forums › Housing › Senate OKs $15,000 tax break for homebuyers – I believe investors too eligible for this tax credit
- This topic has 235 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
Eugene.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 6, 2009 at 12:11 PM #342625February 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM #342175
SDEngineer
Participant[quote=sdjdguy][quote=Charlotte]I agree with SDEngineer. I received an email from Nick Timiraos of the WSJ who wrote the article referenced above, that said he spoke with Senator Isakson’s office and they said that there are no income limitations in the ammendment that was passed by the senate. You know that once Pelosi and folks get their hands on it, they’ll probably put something in to stop the “rich” from getting any break from the ridiculous taxes they already pay, but at this time, I don’t think there are any limitations on income.[/quote]
SDEngineer said that there ARE income limitations in the bill. In any event, I’m glad you confirmed this. I can definitely understand how SDEngineer got confused. I’m an attorney and am somewhat used to reading bill texts, etc., and it still took me over an hour trying to cross-reference the various bills, amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code to be fairly confident of what I posted about the income limits being gone. Unfortunately, I share your concern that once the bill hits the House, Pelosi, et al. will never allow the “rich” to have a “tax cut”–don’t get me started on how unfair that is. [/quote]
I believe what happened is that the bill was changed further from the one that initially was read into Thomas (the text of which I posted).
This isn’t uncommon. As a note, someone else posted later that I did and said that the tax limits were apparently upped. Guess they finally decided to just do away with them altogether. That’s what happens when a bill hits the floor sometimes.
February 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM #342496Participant[quote=sdjdguy][quote=Charlotte]I agree with SDEngineer. I received an email from Nick Timiraos of the WSJ who wrote the article referenced above, that said he spoke with Senator Isakson’s office and they said that there are no income limitations in the ammendment that was passed by the senate. You know that once Pelosi and folks get their hands on it, they’ll probably put something in to stop the “rich” from getting any break from the ridiculous taxes they already pay, but at this time, I don’t think there are any limitations on income.[/quote]
SDEngineer said that there ARE income limitations in the bill. In any event, I’m glad you confirmed this. I can definitely understand how SDEngineer got confused. I’m an attorney and am somewhat used to reading bill texts, etc., and it still took me over an hour trying to cross-reference the various bills, amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code to be fairly confident of what I posted about the income limits being gone. Unfortunately, I share your concern that once the bill hits the House, Pelosi, et al. will never allow the “rich” to have a “tax cut”–don’t get me started on how unfair that is. [/quote]
I believe what happened is that the bill was changed further from the one that initially was read into Thomas (the text of which I posted).
This isn’t uncommon. As a note, someone else posted later that I did and said that the tax limits were apparently upped. Guess they finally decided to just do away with them altogether. That’s what happens when a bill hits the floor sometimes.
February 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM #342603Participant[quote=sdjdguy][quote=Charlotte]I agree with SDEngineer. I received an email from Nick Timiraos of the WSJ who wrote the article referenced above, that said he spoke with Senator Isakson’s office and they said that there are no income limitations in the ammendment that was passed by the senate. You know that once Pelosi and folks get their hands on it, they’ll probably put something in to stop the “rich” from getting any break from the ridiculous taxes they already pay, but at this time, I don’t think there are any limitations on income.[/quote]
SDEngineer said that there ARE income limitations in the bill. In any event, I’m glad you confirmed this. I can definitely understand how SDEngineer got confused. I’m an attorney and am somewhat used to reading bill texts, etc., and it still took me over an hour trying to cross-reference the various bills, amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code to be fairly confident of what I posted about the income limits being gone. Unfortunately, I share your concern that once the bill hits the House, Pelosi, et al. will never allow the “rich” to have a “tax cut”–don’t get me started on how unfair that is. [/quote]
I believe what happened is that the bill was changed further from the one that initially was read into Thomas (the text of which I posted).
This isn’t uncommon. As a note, someone else posted later that I did and said that the tax limits were apparently upped. Guess they finally decided to just do away with them altogether. That’s what happens when a bill hits the floor sometimes.
February 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM #342630Participant[quote=sdjdguy][quote=Charlotte]I agree with SDEngineer. I received an email from Nick Timiraos of the WSJ who wrote the article referenced above, that said he spoke with Senator Isakson’s office and they said that there are no income limitations in the ammendment that was passed by the senate. You know that once Pelosi and folks get their hands on it, they’ll probably put something in to stop the “rich” from getting any break from the ridiculous taxes they already pay, but at this time, I don’t think there are any limitations on income.[/quote]
SDEngineer said that there ARE income limitations in the bill. In any event, I’m glad you confirmed this. I can definitely understand how SDEngineer got confused. I’m an attorney and am somewhat used to reading bill texts, etc., and it still took me over an hour trying to cross-reference the various bills, amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code to be fairly confident of what I posted about the income limits being gone. Unfortunately, I share your concern that once the bill hits the House, Pelosi, et al. will never allow the “rich” to have a “tax cut”–don’t get me started on how unfair that is. [/quote]
I believe what happened is that the bill was changed further from the one that initially was read into Thomas (the text of which I posted).
This isn’t uncommon. As a note, someone else posted later that I did and said that the tax limits were apparently upped. Guess they finally decided to just do away with them altogether. That’s what happens when a bill hits the floor sometimes.
February 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM #342726Participant[quote=sdjdguy][quote=Charlotte]I agree with SDEngineer. I received an email from Nick Timiraos of the WSJ who wrote the article referenced above, that said he spoke with Senator Isakson’s office and they said that there are no income limitations in the ammendment that was passed by the senate. You know that once Pelosi and folks get their hands on it, they’ll probably put something in to stop the “rich” from getting any break from the ridiculous taxes they already pay, but at this time, I don’t think there are any limitations on income.[/quote]
SDEngineer said that there ARE income limitations in the bill. In any event, I’m glad you confirmed this. I can definitely understand how SDEngineer got confused. I’m an attorney and am somewhat used to reading bill texts, etc., and it still took me over an hour trying to cross-reference the various bills, amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code to be fairly confident of what I posted about the income limits being gone. Unfortunately, I share your concern that once the bill hits the House, Pelosi, et al. will never allow the “rich” to have a “tax cut”–don’t get me started on how unfair that is. [/quote]
I believe what happened is that the bill was changed further from the one that initially was read into Thomas (the text of which I posted).
This isn’t uncommon. As a note, someone else posted later that I did and said that the tax limits were apparently upped. Guess they finally decided to just do away with them altogether. That’s what happens when a bill hits the floor sometimes.
February 11, 2009 at 7:18 AM #344302Anonymous
GuestWell, it looks like this provision is going to be taken out by the wonderful liberal House.
From Fox News “These officials added that while numerous details remain to be worked out, a major expansion of an existing tax break for homebuyers, approved in the Senate last week, would likely be jettisoned. There was also pressure to scale back a Senate-passed tax break for new car buyers, according to these officials, and to drop a provision limiting compensation for top executives of companies receiving federal bailout assistance. ”
February 11, 2009 at 7:18 AM #344623GuestWell, it looks like this provision is going to be taken out by the wonderful liberal House.
From Fox News “These officials added that while numerous details remain to be worked out, a major expansion of an existing tax break for homebuyers, approved in the Senate last week, would likely be jettisoned. There was also pressure to scale back a Senate-passed tax break for new car buyers, according to these officials, and to drop a provision limiting compensation for top executives of companies receiving federal bailout assistance. ”
February 11, 2009 at 7:18 AM #344731GuestWell, it looks like this provision is going to be taken out by the wonderful liberal House.
From Fox News “These officials added that while numerous details remain to be worked out, a major expansion of an existing tax break for homebuyers, approved in the Senate last week, would likely be jettisoned. There was also pressure to scale back a Senate-passed tax break for new car buyers, according to these officials, and to drop a provision limiting compensation for top executives of companies receiving federal bailout assistance. ”
February 11, 2009 at 7:18 AM #344762GuestWell, it looks like this provision is going to be taken out by the wonderful liberal House.
From Fox News “These officials added that while numerous details remain to be worked out, a major expansion of an existing tax break for homebuyers, approved in the Senate last week, would likely be jettisoned. There was also pressure to scale back a Senate-passed tax break for new car buyers, according to these officials, and to drop a provision limiting compensation for top executives of companies receiving federal bailout assistance. ”
February 11, 2009 at 7:18 AM #344859GuestWell, it looks like this provision is going to be taken out by the wonderful liberal House.
From Fox News “These officials added that while numerous details remain to be worked out, a major expansion of an existing tax break for homebuyers, approved in the Senate last week, would likely be jettisoned. There was also pressure to scale back a Senate-passed tax break for new car buyers, according to these officials, and to drop a provision limiting compensation for top executives of companies receiving federal bailout assistance. ”
February 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM #344351ParticipantIf they GOP had wanted more of their provisions kept in the final bill, perhaps more of them should have voted for the package? Not like it wasn’t going to be passed anyway, but now the Senate leadership only has to worry about keeping 2 of the 3 GOP moderates appeased.
February 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM #344673ParticipantIf they GOP had wanted more of their provisions kept in the final bill, perhaps more of them should have voted for the package? Not like it wasn’t going to be passed anyway, but now the Senate leadership only has to worry about keeping 2 of the 3 GOP moderates appeased.
February 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM #344781ParticipantIf they GOP had wanted more of their provisions kept in the final bill, perhaps more of them should have voted for the package? Not like it wasn’t going to be passed anyway, but now the Senate leadership only has to worry about keeping 2 of the 3 GOP moderates appeased.
February 11, 2009 at 8:35 AM #344812ParticipantIf they GOP had wanted more of their provisions kept in the final bill, perhaps more of them should have voted for the package? Not like it wasn’t going to be passed anyway, but now the Senate leadership only has to worry about keeping 2 of the 3 GOP moderates appeased.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.