[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=SD Realtor]Forget about the mirror loans and liar loans. Why doesnt the president just ask the GSEs to forgive ANY and ALL debt held by homeowners who are underwater?[/quote]

cause that would be a bailout and bailouts arnt cool.

What they are trying to do is coordinated and efficent programs to help people keep their homes at a minimum cost to the taxpayer and homeowner. Not a bailout.

/snark

[DWCAP]

[quote=SD Realtor]Forget about the mirror loans and liar loans. Why doesnt the president just ask the GSEs to forgive ANY and ALL debt held by homeowners who are underwater?[/quote]

cause that would be a bailout and bailouts arnt cool.

What they are trying to do is coordinated and efficent programs to help people keep their homes at a minimum cost to the taxpayer and homeowner. Not a bailout.

/snark

[DWCAP]

[quote=SD Realtor]Forget about the mirror loans and liar loans. Why doesnt the president just ask the GSEs to forgive ANY and ALL debt held by homeowners who are underwater?[/quote]

cause that would be a bailout and bailouts arnt cool.

What they are trying to do is coordinated and efficent programs to help people keep their homes at a minimum cost to the taxpayer and homeowner. Not a bailout.

/snark

[DWCAP]

[quote=SD Realtor]Forget about the mirror loans and liar loans. Why doesnt the president just ask the GSEs to forgive ANY and ALL debt held by homeowners who are underwater?[/quote]

cause that would be a bailout and bailouts arnt cool.

What they are trying to do is coordinated and efficent programs to help people keep their homes at a minimum cost to the taxpayer and homeowner. Not a bailout.

/snark

[DWCAP]

[quote=SD Realtor]Forget about the mirror loans and liar loans. Why doesnt the president just ask the GSEs to forgive ANY and ALL debt held by homeowners who are underwater?[/quote]

cause that would be a bailout and bailouts arnt cool.

What they are trying to do is coordinated and efficent programs to help people keep their homes at a minimum cost to the taxpayer and homeowner. Not a bailout.

/snark

[DWCAP]

I read about this over at calculated risk, then came here to read the blog reaction to it. My opinion is exactly what was written on CR, and I will quote:

“NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN.”

[DWCAP]

I read about this over at calculated risk, then came here to read the blog reaction to it. My opinion is exactly what was written on CR, and I will quote:

“NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN.”

[DWCAP]

I read about this over at calculated risk, then came here to read the blog reaction to it. My opinion is exactly what was written on CR, and I will quote:

“NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN.”

[DWCAP]

I read about this over at calculated risk, then came here to read the blog reaction to it. My opinion is exactly what was written on CR, and I will quote:

“NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN.”

[DWCAP]

I read about this over at calculated risk, then came here to read the blog reaction to it. My opinion is exactly what was written on CR, and I will quote:

“NOT. GONNA. HAPPEN.”

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[Author]

Posts