[SDEngineer]

[quote=PKMAN]I guess I’m one of the 5% that qualify for both federal and state tax credit programs:

– Have not owned a home for the past 3 years
– Family combined income of less than $150K
– Buying a new home (never been occupied)
– Will own only one home and plan to live there for at least 5-10 years.

However my lender informed me that neither program would provide immediate relief in terms of reducing closing costs or principle loan amount. If I have to wait until next year to benefit from the tax credit programs, that’s too long.[/quote]

True on the state credit. The Federal credit though is claimable immediately after closing. It won’t help with closing costs or any other expenses incurred during escrow or immediately thereafter, but even if you bought in the middle of this year, you could file an amended return and get the 8K credit as soon as the IRS can process and refund it.

And, of course, in the state case, you can always increase your witholdings to see some of it back this year – if you bought a house, you probably would do this anyway since you’d be getting money back now from the mortgage interest deduction.

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[SDEngineer]

The tax change is not to corporate tax rates. They stay the same. It’s to individual taxes, and as such would only apply to small businesses run by an individual who files as an individual. A very small number of small businesses run in this fashion generate over 250K of profits – and of those that do, most don’t generate that much more (given the incremental nature of tax brackets, it would mean a 4% hike in the top tax bracket would translate to less than a 1% increase in total tax burden for any individual making under around 350-400K).

[SDEngineer]

While I couldn’t find statistics for SD County covering 250K income, I did find Census survey results at 200K.

Just over 5% of SD County households have a household income of 200K or more. Given the normal income distribution curve, at a guess, probably 3% or less of SD county households have a 250K income (compared with 1.5% in the general US population).

If you’re in the top 3% or so of households in a given community, I think you do, in fact, probably qualify as “wealthy”.

I think the issue here is a psychological phenomenon. You can always find someone in an income class significantly above you to class as “wealthy”, which, by exclusion, makes you “not wealthy”. But the truth is, if most people can class you as “wealthy” compared to their lifestyle, you probably are “wealthy” – just perhaps not what those looking up from the middle would classify as “fabulously wealthy” which from near the top of the heap merely looks like “wealthy”. All a matter of perception from where you stand.

[SDEngineer]

While I couldn’t find statistics for SD County covering 250K income, I did find Census survey results at 200K.

Just over 5% of SD County households have a household income of 200K or more. Given the normal income distribution curve, at a guess, probably 3% or less of SD county households have a 250K income (compared with 1.5% in the general US population).

If you’re in the top 3% or so of households in a given community, I think you do, in fact, probably qualify as “wealthy”.

I think the issue here is a psychological phenomenon. You can always find someone in an income class significantly above you to class as “wealthy”, which, by exclusion, makes you “not wealthy”. But the truth is, if most people can class you as “wealthy” compared to their lifestyle, you probably are “wealthy” – just perhaps not what those looking up from the middle would classify as “fabulously wealthy” which from near the top of the heap merely looks like “wealthy”. All a matter of perception from where you stand.

[SDEngineer]

While I couldn’t find statistics for SD County covering 250K income, I did find Census survey results at 200K.

Just over 5% of SD County households have a household income of 200K or more. Given the normal income distribution curve, at a guess, probably 3% or less of SD county households have a 250K income (compared with 1.5% in the general US population).

If you’re in the top 3% or so of households in a given community, I think you do, in fact, probably qualify as “wealthy”.

I think the issue here is a psychological phenomenon. You can always find someone in an income class significantly above you to class as “wealthy”, which, by exclusion, makes you “not wealthy”. But the truth is, if most people can class you as “wealthy” compared to their lifestyle, you probably are “wealthy” – just perhaps not what those looking up from the middle would classify as “fabulously wealthy” which from near the top of the heap merely looks like “wealthy”. All a matter of perception from where you stand.

[SDEngineer]

While I couldn’t find statistics for SD County covering 250K income, I did find Census survey results at 200K.

Just over 5% of SD County households have a household income of 200K or more. Given the normal income distribution curve, at a guess, probably 3% or less of SD county households have a 250K income (compared with 1.5% in the general US population).

If you’re in the top 3% or so of households in a given community, I think you do, in fact, probably qualify as “wealthy”.

I think the issue here is a psychological phenomenon. You can always find someone in an income class significantly above you to class as “wealthy”, which, by exclusion, makes you “not wealthy”. But the truth is, if most people can class you as “wealthy” compared to their lifestyle, you probably are “wealthy” – just perhaps not what those looking up from the middle would classify as “fabulously wealthy” which from near the top of the heap merely looks like “wealthy”. All a matter of perception from where you stand.

[SDEngineer]

While I couldn’t find statistics for SD County covering 250K income, I did find Census survey results at 200K.

Just over 5% of SD County households have a household income of 200K or more. Given the normal income distribution curve, at a guess, probably 3% or less of SD county households have a 250K income (compared with 1.5% in the general US population).

If you’re in the top 3% or so of households in a given community, I think you do, in fact, probably qualify as “wealthy”.

I think the issue here is a psychological phenomenon. You can always find someone in an income class significantly above you to class as “wealthy”, which, by exclusion, makes you “not wealthy”. But the truth is, if most people can class you as “wealthy” compared to their lifestyle, you probably are “wealthy” – just perhaps not what those looking up from the middle would classify as “fabulously wealthy” which from near the top of the heap merely looks like “wealthy”. All a matter of perception from where you stand.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sd_matt]If we have to pay for the consequences of peoples actions then we should have a say in their future actions. That’s part of my definition of equality.

Oh you’ve already had six kids? Well, since we the public will have to pay for the eight more then we say “NO”!!!

Liberals! Make sure we are all willing to share the burden before you commit us to the burden! Forcing people into socialism is an oxymoron, at best. [/quote]

Do you see any liberals here (or anywhere else) defending this woman or her doctor? Don’t blame liberals for this – frankly, most liberals have smaller family sizes than conservatives (and yes, there are PLENTY of oversized conservative families that milk the government for all the support they can get for their enormous 10+ kid families).

The doctor should (and likely will) lose his license over this, and deservedly so.

However, the kids in all this are innocent, and we should treat them as such.

I’d love to think of a way to punish the woman without punishing the kids, but this one is beyond me.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sd_matt]If we have to pay for the consequences of peoples actions then we should have a say in their future actions. That’s part of my definition of equality.

Oh you’ve already had six kids? Well, since we the public will have to pay for the eight more then we say “NO”!!!

Liberals! Make sure we are all willing to share the burden before you commit us to the burden! Forcing people into socialism is an oxymoron, at best. [/quote]

Do you see any liberals here (or anywhere else) defending this woman or her doctor? Don’t blame liberals for this – frankly, most liberals have smaller family sizes than conservatives (and yes, there are PLENTY of oversized conservative families that milk the government for all the support they can get for their enormous 10+ kid families).

The doctor should (and likely will) lose his license over this, and deservedly so.

However, the kids in all this are innocent, and we should treat them as such.

I’d love to think of a way to punish the woman without punishing the kids, but this one is beyond me.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sd_matt]If we have to pay for the consequences of peoples actions then we should have a say in their future actions. That’s part of my definition of equality.

Oh you’ve already had six kids? Well, since we the public will have to pay for the eight more then we say “NO”!!!

Liberals! Make sure we are all willing to share the burden before you commit us to the burden! Forcing people into socialism is an oxymoron, at best. [/quote]

Do you see any liberals here (or anywhere else) defending this woman or her doctor? Don’t blame liberals for this – frankly, most liberals have smaller family sizes than conservatives (and yes, there are PLENTY of oversized conservative families that milk the government for all the support they can get for their enormous 10+ kid families).

The doctor should (and likely will) lose his license over this, and deservedly so.

However, the kids in all this are innocent, and we should treat them as such.

I’d love to think of a way to punish the woman without punishing the kids, but this one is beyond me.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sd_matt]If we have to pay for the consequences of peoples actions then we should have a say in their future actions. That’s part of my definition of equality.

Oh you’ve already had six kids? Well, since we the public will have to pay for the eight more then we say “NO”!!!

Liberals! Make sure we are all willing to share the burden before you commit us to the burden! Forcing people into socialism is an oxymoron, at best. [/quote]

Do you see any liberals here (or anywhere else) defending this woman or her doctor? Don’t blame liberals for this – frankly, most liberals have smaller family sizes than conservatives (and yes, there are PLENTY of oversized conservative families that milk the government for all the support they can get for their enormous 10+ kid families).

The doctor should (and likely will) lose his license over this, and deservedly so.

However, the kids in all this are innocent, and we should treat them as such.

I’d love to think of a way to punish the woman without punishing the kids, but this one is beyond me.

[Author]

Posts