@parados,
Right, that's why I'm confused about cyclo's reference to health care financing and income. Is there something in the health care bill that puts a sales tax on a home sale based on income?
@JPB,
Here's the info on obamacare and home sales.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26741.html
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
Right, that's why I'm confused about cyclo's reference to health care financing and income. Is there something in the health care bill that puts a sales tax on a home sale based on income?
Not home sales per se, but Unearned income. Which I believe also includes investment income, but am not sure.
http://www.realtor.org/small_business_health_coverage.nsf/pages/health_ref_faq_med_tax?opendocument
Cycloptichorn
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:Apparently one of the sources of this misinformation is an April 8th blog post from GOP.gov (official website of Republicans in Congress). Nowhere in the blog post does it mention the fact that only those tax returns with incomes exceeding $200,000/$250,000 would be hit.
You mean the official GOP website lied to people? Say it ain't so Joe.
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:Over time, however, if the health care reform and the tax code were never changed, more and more home sales would be subject to this tax. That's because the $200,000 and $250,000 income thresholds in the health care reform bill were not indexed for inflation leading more and more people to qualify for having to pay the 3.8 percent tax on their investment income (including some home sales). Furthermore, the $500,000/$250,000 primary home sale exclusion amounts are not indexed for inflation, meaning that over the long-run as home prices grow with inflation, more primary home sales would be subject to capital gains taxes.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ok, back to Republican candidates...
@Cycloptichorn,
Unearned income would only be a capital gain on a home that had a gain of $250,000 or more.
How many people buy a home, put money into maintaining and repairing it, and still have a capital gain of $250,000 after subtracting all those initial costs? Not too many making less than $100,000 a year. Even a person buying a home in 1950 for $8,000 would have 60 years of upkeep to subtract before any capital gains.
The Gallup poll that I wrote about on Wednesday - and which became fodder for the news media - showed Perry surging, mostly at the expense of Romney. Some pundits almost went so far as to say that Perry was on a clear path to the nomination.
That strikes me as a very premature conclusion. First the poll was of Repubs and Repub leaning independents nationally. Many are not following the contest this early because their states do not have primaries at all or won't be having them for 4 to 6 months.
And Perry has not yet been fully vetted.
Therefore. it is important to focus on the early caucus/primary states which - for better or worse - often (?) determine the candidate.
I waded through polls in 4 key early states. Florida had no recent polls so I left it off for now. Romney is counting on Florida.
I0wa: Perry (22%); Romney (19%); Bachmann (18%); Paul (16%)
New Hamp: Perry (18%); Romney (36%); Bachmann (10%), Paul (14%)
S Carolina: Perry (31%); Romney (20%); Bachmann (14%); Paul (4%)
Nevada: Perry (18%); Romney (31%); Bachmann (10%); Paul (9%)
It would be a bit of a coup for Perry if he takes Iowa. Eyebrows would certainly be raised if Romney finishes beneath 2nd. He is likely to give up on SC but is strong in NH and NV.
I don't see Bachmann and Paul continuing after NV.
@parados,
This could have changed since my last tax course, but I believe that only capital improvements add to the cost basis, not routine maintenance and repair. The example usually given is that a repair to a leaking roof is repair and does not increase the cost basis. A new roof does.
@roger,
I believe you are correct on that matter.
@cicerone imposter,
Thanks. I guess we all know that things change from time to time, but I believe this is still the concept.
@roger,
The list of improvements is pretty long
The following chart lists some other examples of improvements.
Additions
Bedroom
Bathroom
Deck
Garage
Porch
Patio Heating & Air Conditioning
Heating system
Central air conditioning
Furnace
Duct work
Central humidifier
Filtration system
Lawn & Grounds
Landscaping
Driveway
Walkway
Fence
Retaining wall
Sprinkler system
Swimming pool
Miscellaneous
Storm windows, doors
New roof
Central vacuum
Wiring upgrades
Satellite dish
Security system
Plumbing
Septic system
Water heater
Soft water system
Filtration system
Interior
Improvements
Built-in appliances
Kitchen modernization
Flooring
Wall-to-wall carpeting
Insulation
Attic
Walls
Floors
Pipes and duct work
@parados,
Does that list favor Perry or Romney?
I have to laugh when so many Establishment Republicans cringe whenever Perry speaks plainly.
There’s a limit to how effective it can be (and Perry hasn’t come close to it), but voters love it.
This why Christ Christie is hugely popular, why Sarah Palin, despite the incessant media smear campaign, is hugely popular, and why Donald Trump actually led the field for a little while.
Obviously the people who are trying to paint Perry as a Neanderthal “Cowboy,” are afraid of him as an opponent of The Expected One in 2012. It’s a lot easier to make Ron Paul look foolish and Herman Caine has actually crossed the line (at least once with his loyalty oath requirement for Muslim members of the government), but you don’t see Chris Matthews frothing at the mouth over them or Rachel Maddow sending snark missiles their way…because they have no chance of getting the nomination!
Perry has been in politics for a long time, and while anything, I suppose, is possible, I just don’t see him letting the success of plain talk go to his head and dropping f-bombs all over a public speech as did The Donald.
There’s a silly notion out there that the vast majority of Independent voters are reading both the Sunday Times and the WSJ, but with a discerning eye; that, for them, watching David Brooks and EJ Dionne squaring off on PBS is the zenith of civil debate; and that they are somewhat put off by the notion of another Texas Cowboy sitting in the White House. In other words, that they are liberal-lite.
Most of the Independents I know haven’t staked that political claim because their years of intellectual struggle have brought them to a point where they realize the world is just too complicated to take firm stands, that morality is truly relative and who are we to judge anyone’s political opinions whether they are Republican or Democrat, and that what the country really needs are Republicans who can win in NYC.
Most of them just don’t want to be labeled Republican or Democrat, and enjoy the mantle of Independent. This isn’t to criticize them, but to put them in better focus. There are Independents that lean Left and there are Independents that lean Right, but for most of them, it’s their susceptibility to the dominant narrative about a candidate that decides their vote. Reagan was an optimist who was determined that America could be great once more after four years of decline under Carter. Obama was the perfect candidate for the 21st Century, his very origins suggested he was just the right person to unite a country bitterly divided along political lines. He wasn’t going to be Red or Blue, he was going to be Purple!
They trust the narrative because they want to. They don’t vote because of their belief in the basic tenets of with party, they vote for the person who they think will make the best president; the person they like the best. Unfortunately, it is very easy within the context of modern campaigns for a sow’s ear to appear to be a silk purse. Having said this, I don’t think Independents are slaves to the message of The Media. If they were, Reagan would not have been elected, and affiliation with Tea Party would have been the kiss of death in 2010. They take in what the Media feeds them, but most are smart enough to know when reality parts from spin, and (more importantly) because they are not Liberal-Lites, the media doesn’t really understand what does and doesn’t attract them; what does and doesn’t offend them. As a result Chris Christie, who the Media was desperate to portray as fat, rude bully, has been more widely perceived, by Independents, as a straight-talking, get-things-done kind of guy.
I’m not entirely sold on Perry, but unless Christie enters the race, I think I’ll be backing him.
My first choice was Mitch Daniel, but the weirdness with his wife made him back off.
Too bad.
I want someone with competence and conviction who has demonstrated they can turn a mess around. We don’t need ideologues like Bachmann, or Paul.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:Reagan was an optimist who was determined that America could be great once more after four years of decline under Carter.
And all you moral relativists bought into it, so much so that y'all embraced the slaughter of some 40 thousand Nicaraguans, the destruction of a country that still hasn't recovered as a sure sign of a return to America's glory days.
America's greatness surely depended on maintaining a crippling embargo on poor little Vietnam - how dare they whip America's ass?
You know what, Finn, you are right. America's return to greatness has always been based on murder, rape, torture and stealing others wealth.
I'm sure that you could make a case for Hitler with your doublespeak - the world was just too complicated, Germany had to do something.
@cicerone imposter,
You've lived in the house for 40 years and is it appraised or likely to sell for $500,000 more than you bought it?
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I have to laugh when so many Establishment Republicans cringe whenever Perry speaks plainly.
There’s a limit to how effective it can be (and Perry hasn’t come close to it), but voters love it.
This why Christ Christie is hugely popular, why Sarah Palin, despite the incessant media smear campaign, is hugely popular, and why Donald Trump actually led the field for a little while.
I think it says more about the American educational system. Running goverment is complicated, if you let stupid people run it, you end up invading Iraq.
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
The Gallup poll that I wrote about on Wednesday - and which became fodder for the news media - showed Perry surging, mostly at the expense of Romney. Some pundits almost went so far as to say that Perry was on a clear path to the nomination.
That strikes me as a very premature conclusion. First the poll was of Repubs and Repub leaning independents nationally. Many are not following the contest this early because their states do not have primaries at all or won't be having them for 4 to 6 months.
And Perry has not yet been fully vetted.
Therefore. it is important to focus on the early caucus/primary states which - for better or worse - often (?) determine the candidate.
I waded through polls in 4 key early states. Florida had no recent polls so I left it off for now. Romney is counting on Florida.
I0wa: Perry (22%); Romney (19%); Bachmann (18%); Paul (16%)
New Hamp: Perry (18%); Romney (36%); Bachmann (10%), Paul (14%)
S Carolina: Perry (31%); Romney (20%); Bachmann (14%); Paul (4%)
Nevada: Perry (18%); Romney (31%); Bachmann (10%); Paul (9%)
It would be a bit of a coup for Perry if he takes Iowa. Eyebrows would certainly be raised if Romney finishes beneath 2nd. He is likely to give up on SC but is strong in NH and NV.
I don't see Bachmann and Paul continuing after NV.
Have any polls mentioned Jon Huntsman?
