[DWCAP]

What I want to know is why you made an appointment for 4 days later? Were you out of town? Was the agent? If not, then why did you wait so long?

Also, Id talk to that agent, and ask WTF? depending upon his answer, you may need a new agent. Obviously there was appointment times ahead of yours.

[DWCAP]

What I want to know is why you made an appointment for 4 days later? Were you out of town? Was the agent? If not, then why did you wait so long?

Also, Id talk to that agent, and ask WTF? depending upon his answer, you may need a new agent. Obviously there was appointment times ahead of yours.

[DWCAP]

So we are going to have a program where by profits will be privatized to lenders and banks, and losses will be nationalized to taxpayers, but this time it will be ‘carefully designed’ in a ‘reformed system’.

“well gee golly willikers Mr Geithner, that sure sounds a lot like the last system when it was first proposed!”

[DWCAP]

So we are going to have a program where by profits will be privatized to lenders and banks, and losses will be nationalized to taxpayers, but this time it will be ‘carefully designed’ in a ‘reformed system’.

“well gee golly willikers Mr Geithner, that sure sounds a lot like the last system when it was first proposed!”

[DWCAP]

So we are going to have a program where by profits will be privatized to lenders and banks, and losses will be nationalized to taxpayers, but this time it will be ‘carefully designed’ in a ‘reformed system’.

“well gee golly willikers Mr Geithner, that sure sounds a lot like the last system when it was first proposed!”

[DWCAP]

So we are going to have a program where by profits will be privatized to lenders and banks, and losses will be nationalized to taxpayers, but this time it will be ‘carefully designed’ in a ‘reformed system’.

“well gee golly willikers Mr Geithner, that sure sounds a lot like the last system when it was first proposed!”

[DWCAP]

So we are going to have a program where by profits will be privatized to lenders and banks, and losses will be nationalized to taxpayers, but this time it will be ‘carefully designed’ in a ‘reformed system’.

“well gee golly willikers Mr Geithner, that sure sounds a lot like the last system when it was first proposed!”

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]My MIL is a retired federal employee. She worked in the private sector before kids (at a bank) then started as a file clerk (GS1) when the youngest kid started school. She retired as a GS6 or 7, 20 years later. She worked for the feds back when they had decent pensions. Most newer federal employees (hired after 1983) don’t get a big pension – haven’t for years. They get Soc. Sec, a TSP plan (which is the equivalent of a 401k – employee contributes pre-tax), and a small annuity under the FERS plan. Employees hired before 1983 (like my mother in law) had the civil service retirement plan – which was much more generous. Despite saving, having a “great pension” and social security – she doesn’t have a lot of cash laying around and she lives pretty frugally. (Might be disappointing for the relatives that are hoping for a big inheritance. LOL).

My husband’s nephew works for the GAO. Previously he worked on Wall Street after graduating from one of the top business schools. He realized that ethics and wall street might not be compatible, so he did his graduate work and now works for the Fed. He’s not a slacker and he is paid less by the Feds than he did fresh out of his ivy league undergrad working for a large investment firm. He hired after 1983 so he does not get the gold-plated pension… just a small annuity IF he stays long enough and reaches a certain age.

The vast majority of federal workers are on the GS payscale – that is available online.
A GS15 maxes out at $129517. If you move to the executive schedule (much fewer people) it maxes at $200k. (There can be offsets for geography… these are the basis rates.)

The health benefits for federal employees are similar to those offered by large private employers – employees have several plans to pick from (well actually a HUGE assortment) – they can pick a “cadillac plan” and pay a monthly premium commensurate. They can pick an HMO and have a lower monthly payroll deduction. I have a friend who works for the DOT – she has more choices than I do – but the monthly payroll deduction for her HMO is similar to what I have deducted for my HMO. (I work for a pretty large company). Friends who work at Qualcomm (a private employer) have much better health benefits for employees than the Fed offers.

Like FLU and flyer said – worry about your own bottom line, wealth, benefits. If you are envious of the federal wages and benefits – get a job with the feds. You don’t have to work in DC to do so… there are a lot of agencies right here in San Diego.[/quote]

I think the thing with pensions (anti-pension) is interesting. Pensions were not just restricted to the public sector. Private sector use to offer them too. Defense companies are a pretty good example, in which some of my relatives retired with pretty significant pensions in which employer matched contributions… In the private sectors, they were gradually shifted into 401ks, and gradually those benefits disappeared. But there was a gap..Older employees got both pension and 401k, while newer ones were only given 401k’s. (Ask folks at defense companies for example)…I would say the same thing is happening in the public sector. Sorry, but that’s the deal..If you think pensions are great, go for it apply for a government position. Personally, I like my money upfront…I’m sure folks who worked for airlines that were counting on their pensions before the BK filings would also agree with that point too.

I think for the very same reason why folks in the public sector use to complain that it’s unfair that employees of private companies have higher pay AND stock options/stock plans (during the hay-days)…folks in the private sector are now complaining about public sector benefits being better, now that folks in the private sector don’t have those stock/stock options and are surviving just to stay employed… Translation: people just like to compare with other people to see how if they’re doing better or worse. And if they’re doing worse, they think it’s unfair…I’m pretty sure no one would care about how much public sector employees have in pensions, if the equity markets returned back to bubble territory, companies were handing out in-the-money stock/stock options,etc.

I have a friend that is a prof at a university and another one that use to work for one of those high flyer private companies. Having them in the same room made very interesting dynamics. 4 years ago, prof friend would just bitch about how underpaid he was, how he doesn’t get equity,etc…To which I would interject…Well look at it this way, you have great hours, and better job security..and you never know when that might come in handy.. Meanwhile, private high-flyer dude would go about saying he couldn’t imagine working as a prof, because it doesn’t pay enough..

Fast forward to now…Where private sector dude had to hope around 4 times, doesn’t get equity now, has to work long hours for much less pay than before, which prof dude still pretty much has the same hours/benefits/job security that he did years ago (even a raise)…The two now sing completely different tunes… Private sector dude now gripes about how it’s unfair how prof dude doesn’t have to deal with layoffs, and doesn’t have to work long hours. (to which I say, yeah, but you didn’t think about that when your equity was still in the money, were you…You blew it on booze and chicks)…Prof dude now says that he took sacrificed making less for job security and now sort of has that smirk in front of private sector dude….

Funny huh….Sour grapes syndrome, in both cases, imho.[/quote]

People would care if their taxes were going up. That was the placenta of the 1990s, taxes went down and benifits went up. That is when no one cared.

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]My MIL is a retired federal employee. She worked in the private sector before kids (at a bank) then started as a file clerk (GS1) when the youngest kid started school. She retired as a GS6 or 7, 20 years later. She worked for the feds back when they had decent pensions. Most newer federal employees (hired after 1983) don’t get a big pension – haven’t for years. They get Soc. Sec, a TSP plan (which is the equivalent of a 401k – employee contributes pre-tax), and a small annuity under the FERS plan. Employees hired before 1983 (like my mother in law) had the civil service retirement plan – which was much more generous. Despite saving, having a “great pension” and social security – she doesn’t have a lot of cash laying around and she lives pretty frugally. (Might be disappointing for the relatives that are hoping for a big inheritance. LOL).

My husband’s nephew works for the GAO. Previously he worked on Wall Street after graduating from one of the top business schools. He realized that ethics and wall street might not be compatible, so he did his graduate work and now works for the Fed. He’s not a slacker and he is paid less by the Feds than he did fresh out of his ivy league undergrad working for a large investment firm. He hired after 1983 so he does not get the gold-plated pension… just a small annuity IF he stays long enough and reaches a certain age.

The vast majority of federal workers are on the GS payscale – that is available online.
A GS15 maxes out at $129517. If you move to the executive schedule (much fewer people) it maxes at $200k. (There can be offsets for geography… these are the basis rates.)

The health benefits for federal employees are similar to those offered by large private employers – employees have several plans to pick from (well actually a HUGE assortment) – they can pick a “cadillac plan” and pay a monthly premium commensurate. They can pick an HMO and have a lower monthly payroll deduction. I have a friend who works for the DOT – she has more choices than I do – but the monthly payroll deduction for her HMO is similar to what I have deducted for my HMO. (I work for a pretty large company). Friends who work at Qualcomm (a private employer) have much better health benefits for employees than the Fed offers.

Like FLU and flyer said – worry about your own bottom line, wealth, benefits. If you are envious of the federal wages and benefits – get a job with the feds. You don’t have to work in DC to do so… there are a lot of agencies right here in San Diego.[/quote]

I think the thing with pensions (anti-pension) is interesting. Pensions were not just restricted to the public sector. Private sector use to offer them too. Defense companies are a pretty good example, in which some of my relatives retired with pretty significant pensions in which employer matched contributions… In the private sectors, they were gradually shifted into 401ks, and gradually those benefits disappeared. But there was a gap..Older employees got both pension and 401k, while newer ones were only given 401k’s. (Ask folks at defense companies for example)…I would say the same thing is happening in the public sector. Sorry, but that’s the deal..If you think pensions are great, go for it apply for a government position. Personally, I like my money upfront…I’m sure folks who worked for airlines that were counting on their pensions before the BK filings would also agree with that point too.

I think for the very same reason why folks in the public sector use to complain that it’s unfair that employees of private companies have higher pay AND stock options/stock plans (during the hay-days)…folks in the private sector are now complaining about public sector benefits being better, now that folks in the private sector don’t have those stock/stock options and are surviving just to stay employed… Translation: people just like to compare with other people to see how if they’re doing better or worse. And if they’re doing worse, they think it’s unfair…I’m pretty sure no one would care about how much public sector employees have in pensions, if the equity markets returned back to bubble territory, companies were handing out in-the-money stock/stock options,etc.

I have a friend that is a prof at a university and another one that use to work for one of those high flyer private companies. Having them in the same room made very interesting dynamics. 4 years ago, prof friend would just bitch about how underpaid he was, how he doesn’t get equity,etc…To which I would interject…Well look at it this way, you have great hours, and better job security..and you never know when that might come in handy.. Meanwhile, private high-flyer dude would go about saying he couldn’t imagine working as a prof, because it doesn’t pay enough..

Fast forward to now…Where private sector dude had to hope around 4 times, doesn’t get equity now, has to work long hours for much less pay than before, which prof dude still pretty much has the same hours/benefits/job security that he did years ago (even a raise)…The two now sing completely different tunes… Private sector dude now gripes about how it’s unfair how prof dude doesn’t have to deal with layoffs, and doesn’t have to work long hours. (to which I say, yeah, but you didn’t think about that when your equity was still in the money, were you…You blew it on booze and chicks)…Prof dude now says that he took sacrificed making less for job security and now sort of has that smirk in front of private sector dude….

Funny huh….Sour grapes syndrome, in both cases, imho.[/quote]

People would care if their taxes were going up. That was the placenta of the 1990s, taxes went down and benifits went up. That is when no one cared.

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]My MIL is a retired federal employee. She worked in the private sector before kids (at a bank) then started as a file clerk (GS1) when the youngest kid started school. She retired as a GS6 or 7, 20 years later. She worked for the feds back when they had decent pensions. Most newer federal employees (hired after 1983) don’t get a big pension – haven’t for years. They get Soc. Sec, a TSP plan (which is the equivalent of a 401k – employee contributes pre-tax), and a small annuity under the FERS plan. Employees hired before 1983 (like my mother in law) had the civil service retirement plan – which was much more generous. Despite saving, having a “great pension” and social security – she doesn’t have a lot of cash laying around and she lives pretty frugally. (Might be disappointing for the relatives that are hoping for a big inheritance. LOL).

My husband’s nephew works for the GAO. Previously he worked on Wall Street after graduating from one of the top business schools. He realized that ethics and wall street might not be compatible, so he did his graduate work and now works for the Fed. He’s not a slacker and he is paid less by the Feds than he did fresh out of his ivy league undergrad working for a large investment firm. He hired after 1983 so he does not get the gold-plated pension… just a small annuity IF he stays long enough and reaches a certain age.

The vast majority of federal workers are on the GS payscale – that is available online.
A GS15 maxes out at $129517. If you move to the executive schedule (much fewer people) it maxes at $200k. (There can be offsets for geography… these are the basis rates.)

The health benefits for federal employees are similar to those offered by large private employers – employees have several plans to pick from (well actually a HUGE assortment) – they can pick a “cadillac plan” and pay a monthly premium commensurate. They can pick an HMO and have a lower monthly payroll deduction. I have a friend who works for the DOT – she has more choices than I do – but the monthly payroll deduction for her HMO is similar to what I have deducted for my HMO. (I work for a pretty large company). Friends who work at Qualcomm (a private employer) have much better health benefits for employees than the Fed offers.

Like FLU and flyer said – worry about your own bottom line, wealth, benefits. If you are envious of the federal wages and benefits – get a job with the feds. You don’t have to work in DC to do so… there are a lot of agencies right here in San Diego.[/quote]

I think the thing with pensions (anti-pension) is interesting. Pensions were not just restricted to the public sector. Private sector use to offer them too. Defense companies are a pretty good example, in which some of my relatives retired with pretty significant pensions in which employer matched contributions… In the private sectors, they were gradually shifted into 401ks, and gradually those benefits disappeared. But there was a gap..Older employees got both pension and 401k, while newer ones were only given 401k’s. (Ask folks at defense companies for example)…I would say the same thing is happening in the public sector. Sorry, but that’s the deal..If you think pensions are great, go for it apply for a government position. Personally, I like my money upfront…I’m sure folks who worked for airlines that were counting on their pensions before the BK filings would also agree with that point too.

I think for the very same reason why folks in the public sector use to complain that it’s unfair that employees of private companies have higher pay AND stock options/stock plans (during the hay-days)…folks in the private sector are now complaining about public sector benefits being better, now that folks in the private sector don’t have those stock/stock options and are surviving just to stay employed… Translation: people just like to compare with other people to see how if they’re doing better or worse. And if they’re doing worse, they think it’s unfair…I’m pretty sure no one would care about how much public sector employees have in pensions, if the equity markets returned back to bubble territory, companies were handing out in-the-money stock/stock options,etc.

I have a friend that is a prof at a university and another one that use to work for one of those high flyer private companies. Having them in the same room made very interesting dynamics. 4 years ago, prof friend would just bitch about how underpaid he was, how he doesn’t get equity,etc…To which I would interject…Well look at it this way, you have great hours, and better job security..and you never know when that might come in handy.. Meanwhile, private high-flyer dude would go about saying he couldn’t imagine working as a prof, because it doesn’t pay enough..

Fast forward to now…Where private sector dude had to hope around 4 times, doesn’t get equity now, has to work long hours for much less pay than before, which prof dude still pretty much has the same hours/benefits/job security that he did years ago (even a raise)…The two now sing completely different tunes… Private sector dude now gripes about how it’s unfair how prof dude doesn’t have to deal with layoffs, and doesn’t have to work long hours. (to which I say, yeah, but you didn’t think about that when your equity was still in the money, were you…You blew it on booze and chicks)…Prof dude now says that he took sacrificed making less for job security and now sort of has that smirk in front of private sector dude….

Funny huh….Sour grapes syndrome, in both cases, imho.[/quote]

People would care if their taxes were going up. That was the placenta of the 1990s, taxes went down and benifits went up. That is when no one cared.

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]My MIL is a retired federal employee. She worked in the private sector before kids (at a bank) then started as a file clerk (GS1) when the youngest kid started school. She retired as a GS6 or 7, 20 years later. She worked for the feds back when they had decent pensions. Most newer federal employees (hired after 1983) don’t get a big pension – haven’t for years. They get Soc. Sec, a TSP plan (which is the equivalent of a 401k – employee contributes pre-tax), and a small annuity under the FERS plan. Employees hired before 1983 (like my mother in law) had the civil service retirement plan – which was much more generous. Despite saving, having a “great pension” and social security – she doesn’t have a lot of cash laying around and she lives pretty frugally. (Might be disappointing for the relatives that are hoping for a big inheritance. LOL).

My husband’s nephew works for the GAO. Previously he worked on Wall Street after graduating from one of the top business schools. He realized that ethics and wall street might not be compatible, so he did his graduate work and now works for the Fed. He’s not a slacker and he is paid less by the Feds than he did fresh out of his ivy league undergrad working for a large investment firm. He hired after 1983 so he does not get the gold-plated pension… just a small annuity IF he stays long enough and reaches a certain age.

The vast majority of federal workers are on the GS payscale – that is available online.
A GS15 maxes out at $129517. If you move to the executive schedule (much fewer people) it maxes at $200k. (There can be offsets for geography… these are the basis rates.)

The health benefits for federal employees are similar to those offered by large private employers – employees have several plans to pick from (well actually a HUGE assortment) – they can pick a “cadillac plan” and pay a monthly premium commensurate. They can pick an HMO and have a lower monthly payroll deduction. I have a friend who works for the DOT – she has more choices than I do – but the monthly payroll deduction for her HMO is similar to what I have deducted for my HMO. (I work for a pretty large company). Friends who work at Qualcomm (a private employer) have much better health benefits for employees than the Fed offers.

Like FLU and flyer said – worry about your own bottom line, wealth, benefits. If you are envious of the federal wages and benefits – get a job with the feds. You don’t have to work in DC to do so… there are a lot of agencies right here in San Diego.[/quote]

I think the thing with pensions (anti-pension) is interesting. Pensions were not just restricted to the public sector. Private sector use to offer them too. Defense companies are a pretty good example, in which some of my relatives retired with pretty significant pensions in which employer matched contributions… In the private sectors, they were gradually shifted into 401ks, and gradually those benefits disappeared. But there was a gap..Older employees got both pension and 401k, while newer ones were only given 401k’s. (Ask folks at defense companies for example)…I would say the same thing is happening in the public sector. Sorry, but that’s the deal..If you think pensions are great, go for it apply for a government position. Personally, I like my money upfront…I’m sure folks who worked for airlines that were counting on their pensions before the BK filings would also agree with that point too.

I think for the very same reason why folks in the public sector use to complain that it’s unfair that employees of private companies have higher pay AND stock options/stock plans (during the hay-days)…folks in the private sector are now complaining about public sector benefits being better, now that folks in the private sector don’t have those stock/stock options and are surviving just to stay employed… Translation: people just like to compare with other people to see how if they’re doing better or worse. And if they’re doing worse, they think it’s unfair…I’m pretty sure no one would care about how much public sector employees have in pensions, if the equity markets returned back to bubble territory, companies were handing out in-the-money stock/stock options,etc.

I have a friend that is a prof at a university and another one that use to work for one of those high flyer private companies. Having them in the same room made very interesting dynamics. 4 years ago, prof friend would just bitch about how underpaid he was, how he doesn’t get equity,etc…To which I would interject…Well look at it this way, you have great hours, and better job security..and you never know when that might come in handy.. Meanwhile, private high-flyer dude would go about saying he couldn’t imagine working as a prof, because it doesn’t pay enough..

Fast forward to now…Where private sector dude had to hope around 4 times, doesn’t get equity now, has to work long hours for much less pay than before, which prof dude still pretty much has the same hours/benefits/job security that he did years ago (even a raise)…The two now sing completely different tunes… Private sector dude now gripes about how it’s unfair how prof dude doesn’t have to deal with layoffs, and doesn’t have to work long hours. (to which I say, yeah, but you didn’t think about that when your equity was still in the money, were you…You blew it on booze and chicks)…Prof dude now says that he took sacrificed making less for job security and now sort of has that smirk in front of private sector dude….

Funny huh….Sour grapes syndrome, in both cases, imho.[/quote]

People would care if their taxes were going up. That was the placenta of the 1990s, taxes went down and benifits went up. That is when no one cared.

[DWCAP]

[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]My MIL is a retired federal employee. She worked in the private sector before kids (at a bank) then started as a file clerk (GS1) when the youngest kid started school. She retired as a GS6 or 7, 20 years later. She worked for the feds back when they had decent pensions. Most newer federal employees (hired after 1983) don’t get a big pension – haven’t for years. They get Soc. Sec, a TSP plan (which is the equivalent of a 401k – employee contributes pre-tax), and a small annuity under the FERS plan. Employees hired before 1983 (like my mother in law) had the civil service retirement plan – which was much more generous. Despite saving, having a “great pension” and social security – she doesn’t have a lot of cash laying around and she lives pretty frugally. (Might be disappointing for the relatives that are hoping for a big inheritance. LOL).

My husband’s nephew works for the GAO. Previously he worked on Wall Street after graduating from one of the top business schools. He realized that ethics and wall street might not be compatible, so he did his graduate work and now works for the Fed. He’s not a slacker and he is paid less by the Feds than he did fresh out of his ivy league undergrad working for a large investment firm. He hired after 1983 so he does not get the gold-plated pension… just a small annuity IF he stays long enough and reaches a certain age.

The vast majority of federal workers are on the GS payscale – that is available online.
A GS15 maxes out at $129517. If you move to the executive schedule (much fewer people) it maxes at $200k. (There can be offsets for geography… these are the basis rates.)

The health benefits for federal employees are similar to those offered by large private employers – employees have several plans to pick from (well actually a HUGE assortment) – they can pick a “cadillac plan” and pay a monthly premium commensurate. They can pick an HMO and have a lower monthly payroll deduction. I have a friend who works for the DOT – she has more choices than I do – but the monthly payroll deduction for her HMO is similar to what I have deducted for my HMO. (I work for a pretty large company). Friends who work at Qualcomm (a private employer) have much better health benefits for employees than the Fed offers.

Like FLU and flyer said – worry about your own bottom line, wealth, benefits. If you are envious of the federal wages and benefits – get a job with the feds. You don’t have to work in DC to do so… there are a lot of agencies right here in San Diego.[/quote]

I think the thing with pensions (anti-pension) is interesting. Pensions were not just restricted to the public sector. Private sector use to offer them too. Defense companies are a pretty good example, in which some of my relatives retired with pretty significant pensions in which employer matched contributions… In the private sectors, they were gradually shifted into 401ks, and gradually those benefits disappeared. But there was a gap..Older employees got both pension and 401k, while newer ones were only given 401k’s. (Ask folks at defense companies for example)…I would say the same thing is happening in the public sector. Sorry, but that’s the deal..If you think pensions are great, go for it apply for a government position. Personally, I like my money upfront…I’m sure folks who worked for airlines that were counting on their pensions before the BK filings would also agree with that point too.

I think for the very same reason why folks in the public sector use to complain that it’s unfair that employees of private companies have higher pay AND stock options/stock plans (during the hay-days)…folks in the private sector are now complaining about public sector benefits being better, now that folks in the private sector don’t have those stock/stock options and are surviving just to stay employed… Translation: people just like to compare with other people to see how if they’re doing better or worse. And if they’re doing worse, they think it’s unfair…I’m pretty sure no one would care about how much public sector employees have in pensions, if the equity markets returned back to bubble territory, companies were handing out in-the-money stock/stock options,etc.

I have a friend that is a prof at a university and another one that use to work for one of those high flyer private companies. Having them in the same room made very interesting dynamics. 4 years ago, prof friend would just bitch about how underpaid he was, how he doesn’t get equity,etc…To which I would interject…Well look at it this way, you have great hours, and better job security..and you never know when that might come in handy.. Meanwhile, private high-flyer dude would go about saying he couldn’t imagine working as a prof, because it doesn’t pay enough..

Fast forward to now…Where private sector dude had to hope around 4 times, doesn’t get equity now, has to work long hours for much less pay than before, which prof dude still pretty much has the same hours/benefits/job security that he did years ago (even a raise)…The two now sing completely different tunes… Private sector dude now gripes about how it’s unfair how prof dude doesn’t have to deal with layoffs, and doesn’t have to work long hours. (to which I say, yeah, but you didn’t think about that when your equity was still in the money, were you…You blew it on booze and chicks)…Prof dude now says that he took sacrificed making less for job security and now sort of has that smirk in front of private sector dude….

Funny huh….Sour grapes syndrome, in both cases, imho.[/quote]

People would care if their taxes were going up. That was the placenta of the 1990s, taxes went down and benifits went up. That is when no one cared.

[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.

[Author]

Posts