Do you plan to retire some day? Here is a kiss for you!

[maxiep]

I feel sorry for you.



what you're saying doesn't make sense, because reality doesn't agree with it.

If a family is living on a fixed income, it means they don't make much.

Let's say, generously, they make 50K a year.

Their house, let's say, is sold for 500K. They bought it in 1950 for 10K.

That means, on a house they own, they made 490K in profit.

Add to that, the 50K they make a year in income, and that means they pay 3.8% tax on....40K.

So, out of the 500K they made on the sale of the house, they now owe....calculating...calculating...calculating...approx 1900 dollars.

You're telling me, a couple that made 500K on the sale of their house, couldn't afford 1900 dollars, a one time tax?

Considering they made about 4K a month (in pension/SS, etc) I think they'll survive.


maybe you have a different opinion on what level their "fixed" income is. Maybe you think 100K a year, as a retired/elder person is fixed income.

But realistically, if someone is making 100K as a retired/elder, they're making pretty good money.

What if they had plans for that money? What if they wanted to help their kids? Put a grandchild through college? What if they had to go to expensive senior housing? Any metro area that has expensive housing also has a high cost of living.

And who are you to decide what is and is not good money or what someone can afford? And I'm thought of as being condescending on this board. You don't even realize the vastness of your arrogance.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

To be fair, I change the emphasis to sound like Zach Galifianakis, so it's actually a compliment

[video=youtube;kjEAqrFmAXM]

You would be fun to go to Vegas with.

 

[maxiep]

You would be fun to go to Vegas with.

I still want to do a Summer League.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I still want to do a Summer League.

That would be fun. Is USA Basketball next summer? A bunch of us should get together for SL and a couple of USAB games next summer.

 

[julius]

What if they had plans for that money? What if they wanted to help their kids? Put a grandchild through college? What if they had to go to expensive senior housing? Any metro area that has expensive housing also has a high cost of living.

Obama didn't spend more on the bailout than the last 10 presid...oops, wrong hairbrained logic.

If they're on a fixed income, chances are they don't live in a house that is worth enough to add to their income level to be more than 500K. Is it possible? Sure. But I'm willing to bet that the number of elderly senior citizens living on a fixed income, where the value of their house and their income (and all other assets) is worth more than 500K (for married couples) is very small.

So it's kind of a moot point.

Look, my grandparents are both retired (actually, been for a long time). As are my parents, 3 of my uncles, and 2 of my aunts. If they were making 100K a year, they'd be living very well.

Maybe in your world, retirees and elderly make a lot of money, but to those of us who live in the real world, fixed income earners don't make a lot of money and don't tend to live in very lavish or expensive houses.

So to act like an elderly couple making 50K is A: fixed income and B: able to live in a house that is worth 500K and C: lived in said house for 60+ years and not have been priced out of said house in the first place due to never making a lot of money is laughably stunted.

And who are you to decide what is and is not good money or what someone can afford? And I'm thought of as being condescending on this board. You don't even realize the vastness of your arrogance.

Explain how I'm being arrogant, please.

Because your scenarios you're painting are not plausible.

most couples haven't owned their homes for 50+ years, live on a fixed income AND are in houses worth 500K+

The average house in the US isn't worth 500K. You're telling me, and everyone else here, the there are a significant # of elders (living on a fixed income) who live well above the average house price of the rest of us?

A house selling for 500K is about twice that of the average house in the US.


And in the places where a 500K house more common (say, Southern California), the people who live in them tend not to be barely making ends meet (in the sense of being elderly and living on a fixed income) and I really doubt most of them have lived in their houses for 50+ years.

But yeah, it's me being arrogant.

 

[Further]

SlyPokerDog is a SlyPokerDog and should forcibly shove his SlyPokerDog in a SlyPokerDog!!!!

 

[MickZagger]

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

Thats not true. I just think my humor goes over your head and you don't know how to react to me. Is it possible for someone to be more weird than me? Is what your sub-consciously thinking.

 

[Denny Crane]

Can't wait till they're dead to take their life savings away. Got to score some while they're alive. It's the ... whatever ... way!

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Really? Well let's hear it. How does it work? I built my house about 18 years ago for $150,000. I cut the lumber and pounded the nails. I suppose I would get about $900,000 for it now.
My healthcare plan was dropped by my prior employer because of the new taxes on that coverage. So I may need to sell the house to pay the bills for my wife.
Go for it, tell me how to skip this 3.8% new tax.

Considering that for the average person, a great deal of their wealth is in the value of their homes...valid point

 

[Nikolokolus]

Basketball season can't start soon enough ...

 

[DaLincolnJones]

What if they had plans for that money? What if they wanted to help their kids? Put a grandchild through college? What if they had to go to expensive senior housing? Any metro area that has expensive housing also has a high cost of living.

And who are you to decide what is and is not good money or what someone can afford? And I'm thought of as being condescending on this board. You don't even realize the vastness of your arrogance.

very well stated

 

[julius]

very well stated

Did you even bother to read anything else that was said or did you just look for maxie's post and be a ditto head?

because it's not like what he said was well stated.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Did you even bother to read anything else that was said or did you just look for maxie's post and be a ditto head?

because it's not like what he said was well stated.

yes..I did read every post here, as well as some things I did not want to read. hehe.

 

[julius]

yes..I did read every post here, as well as some things I did not want to read. hehe.

touche

 

[MARIS61]

A sales tax on a home amounts triple-taxation on a home.

1. All homeowners pay yearly property tax. Right up until the day you sell it, or the day you lose it to the bank.

2. If you sell it for enough profit you pay capital gains tax on the "excess income".

3. The Obamacare tax is a clone of the capital gains tax.

There are several problems here.

(Property tax is not one of them. It is local and controlled by local voters, supplying basic needs for the property owner's community. The breadth of these needs and their cost is also determined by local voters.)

1. The Federal government supplies no service(s) to the home-seller they are taxing. They are taxing the seller in order to finance Obamacare. It's pretty well known that the bulk of the capital gains crowd opposes Obamacare. So there's an excellent case for taxation without representation here.

2. There's a huge difference between...

A.- putting 30 years of your life into a home, working on it, foregoing other things to pay for it, maybe working a job you hate and throwing out your bucket list just so you can leave something solid for your kids to build their lives around, and...

B.- floating a construction loan to buy a foreclosure, spruce it up for cheap and then flip it the same year while doubling your money.

A. is what made America the envy of the world.

B. is what caused the recession.

I should point out that there are a myriad of legal ways to record the ownership of your home, and as many ways to actually sell it, that will shield most people from either tax.

 

[maxiep]

Did you even bother to read anything else that was said or did you just look for maxie's post and be a ditto head?

because it's not like what he said was well stated.

Thanks for your opinion. Once again, you've decided to appoint yourself to be the judge, jury and executioner as to what is correct, yet you can't figure why on earth anyone would call you arrogant. I guess cluelessly arrogant would be a better term.

 

[julius]

Thanks for your opinion. Once again, you've decided to appoint yourself to be the judge, jury and executioner as to what is correct, yet you can't figure why on earth anyone would call you arrogant. I guess cluelessly arrogant would be a better term.

Show where what I said isn't more reasonable than what you said. Because if you extrapolate out what you said, it's nonsense.

I'll wait.

 

[maxiep]

Show where what I said isn't more reasonable than what you said. Because if you extrapolate out what you said, it's nonsense.

I'll wait.

You're deciding what is and isn't reasonable to pay, what is and isn't a lot of money, how long people live and don't live in their houses, what people can and cannot afford and what elderly people should and shouldn't do with their own money.

You don't think that's unreasonable. Others disagree.

 

[julius]

You're deciding what is and isn't reasonable to pay

No, I was addressing your claim that many elders would be people being forced to pay the 3.8% tax, when they're not.

, what is and isn't a lot of money,

said the man who claimed 250K in a big city means you're barely passing buy.

You do know there's such a thing as a "cost of living" calculator, right? And that it's actually more expensive to live in San Diego than LA, right?

And that to have a similar life style in LA as yuo would in Portland, the #'s aren't that far off, right?

it's not like to have a 50K Portland lifestyle in LA you need to earn 150K.

And even if you did, or need to spend more to get a decent house in LA (or San Diego, or San Francisco) that kind of backs up my point that those elders who ARE retiring/on a fixed income aren't living in areas where their houses are worth a large amount of money. Because they can't afford it in the first place. And therefore they're not having to dole out this tax, because if they sold their house their income AND the CG's from their house wouldn't be at the threshold.

And if it was at the threshold, it more than likely means that they weren't living on a fixed income in the first place.

how long people live and don't live in their houses

Wait, let me get this straight. You're actually going to argue that I'm saying how long people live and don't live in their houses?

You're the one who brought up an unrealistic scenario, not me. Most people, if they end up living on a fixed income as an elder, simply can't afford to live in a very expensive house...otherwise they'd have more $$ in retirement.

It's called math.

what people can and cannot afford

what in the hell are you talking about??

and what elderly people should and shouldn't do with their own money.

Or maybe I'm saying that the scenario you brought up as proof this is an evil evil tax, is a strawman and easily shown to be crap.

You don't think that's unreasonable. Others disagree.

Others = you and like 2 other people.

Show me where what I said wasn't true.

Show me where an elderly couple, living on an fixed income, are more likely to live in a house worth more than 500K (or 900K in your scenario) , live there for 50+ years, and have to pay the tax.

Because in the real world, the vast majority of elderly couples who live on a fixed income, couldn't afford to live in expensive or glamorous homes.

Considering the average house sells for about 250-275K, it's not unreasonable to assume that the average elder or senior (especially on a fixed income) isn't going to live in houses worth twice that of the national average.

Again, it's math. But please, feel free to change what it is you are saying so you can continue to avoid admitting you might be wrong about something. Continue to feel the need to argue a poorly thought out point that caused you to call me an ignoramus, a moron, a fucking moron, and a retard.

Please, continue showing me the errors of my ways by being the bigger man and showing me the light.

 

[julius]

second dose of codine is kicking in.

 

[Further]

I decided to look at my parents situation, since my father just retired.

In 1985 they bought a house for 330k. My father just retired, my mom is still a realtor. I asked her how much her house is worth, she was pleased to tell me it's at about 850k now. So for my parents, 850-330= 520,000. Of that profit, 500,000 they would not need to pay taxes on. They would owe 3.8% of 20k or $760.

My whole point in all that about my parents is they are quite well off, well above average, although shy of wealthy. And this tax would impact them to the tune of less than 1000. Currently they are on a three week cycling trip in France. If a tax like this would be so inconsequential with people who can afford frequent vacations like that, then I think it's not going to NEGATIVELY affect an average retired couple. Of course it could POSITIVELY affect them, but that's to far a bridge to cross at the moment.

 

[maxiep]

It's hilarious to read all these, "these people can pay just a little bit more" comments. It's so fucking backward it's not even funny. All people can see is free shit for themselves. Let someone else pay for it.

How about being personally responsible? Nope, that's now how America rolls these days.

Just remember, once you've bled the "rich" dry, they're coming after the middle class. And for those who can't do math, there's no way to finance all this "free" shit without taxing the shit out of those people who just wanted something for nothing.

 

[julius]

It's hilarious to read all these, "these people can pay just a little bit more" comments. It's so fucking backward it's not even funny. All people can see is free shit for themselves. Let someone else pay for it.

That has nothing to do with it, but thanks for playing.

I'm not in favor of more taxes, but you presented an anecdote that doesn't hold water. Just admit it.

How about being personally responsible? Nope, that's now how America rolls these days.

You argue like an alcoholic. You bring up things that are totally unrelated to what was being discussed. Who said anything about personal responsibility?

This was a discussion about how your analogy was flawed, and you seem to be incapable of admitting it. But you stuck, steadfastly, with your argument.

I want you to stop and think about what you said.

Elders, who are receiving a fixed income, apparently can afford to live in a house worth almost a million dollars (the property taxes alone would probably be more than the 3.8% tax would be...on the money they made from the sale of their house), and even though in most cases where they can live in a house worth several hundred thousand dollars, apparently can do so on a very small income...and that this scenario is that of an average retiree/elderly person/couple in the US who live on a fixed income.

Now, the only part where what you say can be made into a logical argument is if you say that the "fixed income" is significantly higher than the average income of an American (about 35-65K a year). And if thats the case, you have an unrealistic definition of what "fixed income" means.

Just remember, once you've bled the "rich" dry, they're coming after the middle class.

How is this bleeding anyone dry? Do you rich people buy and sell properties left and right?

Like I said, and people who do this for a living and not just on a message board, this has a very limited impact on the overwhelming vast majority of Americans (elder or not).

And for those who can't do math, there's no way to finance all this "free" shit without taxing the shit out of those people who just wanted something for nothing.

again, whats this go to do with you being wrong about your argument?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

There's so much rich in America, it would take centuries to bleed it try at 3.8% of profits over half a million made per transaction. The myth of Peak Rich is just that, a myth. Bleed baby bleed!

 

[MarAzul]

That has nothing to do with it, but thanks for playing.

I'm not in favor of more taxes, but you presented an anecdote that doesn't hold water. Just admit it.



You argue like an alcoholic. You bring up things that are totally unrelated to what was being discussed. Who said anything about personal responsibility?

This was a discussion about how your analogy was flawed, and you seem to be incapable of admitting it. But you stuck, steadfastly, with your argument.

I want you to stop and think about what you said.

Elders, who are receiving a fixed income, apparently can afford to live in a house worth almost a million dollars (the property taxes alone would probably be more than the 3.8% tax would be...on the money they made from the sale of their house), and even though in most cases where they can live in a house worth several hundred thousand dollars, apparently can do so on a very small income...and that this scenario is that of an average retiree/elderly person/couple in the US who live on a fixed income.

Now, the only part where what you say can be made into a logical argument is if you say that the "fixed income" is significantly higher than the average income of an American (about 35-65K a year). And if thats the case, you have an unrealistic definition of what "fixed income" means.



How is this bleeding anyone dry? Do you rich people buy and sell properties left and right?

Like I said, and people who do this for a living and not just on a message board, this has a very limited impact on the overwhelming vast majority of Americans (elder or not).



again, whats this go to do with you being wrong about your argument?

I imagine you momma thinks you are a fine boy julius, but don't you worry, I am sure you won't get stuck with this tax. If you can't visualize how it would happen, it won't

 

[Mediocre Man]

We have a place in Panama that we hope to retire to soon

 

[donkiez]

It's hilarious to read all these, "these people can pay just a little bit more" comments. It's so fucking backward it's not even funny. All people can see is free shit for themselves. Let someone else pay for it.

How about being personally responsible? Nope, that's now how America rolls these days.

Just remember, once you've bled the "rich" dry, they're coming after the middle class. And for those who can't do math, there's no way to finance all this "free" shit without taxing the shit out of those people who just wanted something for nothing.

I can't wait till we all get our free health care. I'm going to go party at the hospital, with MRI's and colonoscopies twice a day. Just because I know you and Mar can afford it.

 

[MarAzul]

I can't wait till we all get our free health care. I'm going to go party at the hospital, with MRI's and colonoscopies twice a day. Just because I know you and Mar can afford it.

I imagine you deserve colonoscopies twice a day. But I suspect you never had one!!!

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I can't wait till we all get our free health care. I'm going to go party at the hospital, with MRI's and a VW driven up your ass twice a day. Just because I know you and Mar can afford it.

well depending on the plan, that may be an out of pocket expense. oh, and remember your deductible can be as high as 40% with zero prescription coverage..

 

[maxiep]

That has nothing to do with it, but thanks for playing.

I'm not in favor of more taxes, but you presented an anecdote that doesn't hold water. Just admit it.



You argue like an alcoholic. You bring up things that are totally unrelated to what was being discussed. Who said anything about personal responsibility?

This was a discussion about how your analogy was flawed, and you seem to be incapable of admitting it. But you stuck, steadfastly, with your argument.

I want you to stop and think about what you said.

Elders, who are receiving a fixed income, apparently can afford to live in a house worth almost a million dollars (the property taxes alone would probably be more than the 3.8% tax would be...on the money they made from the sale of their house), and even though in most cases where they can live in a house worth several hundred thousand dollars, apparently can do so on a very small income...and that this scenario is that of an average retiree/elderly person/couple in the US who live on a fixed income.

Now, the only part where what you say can be made into a logical argument is if you say that the "fixed income" is significantly higher than the average income of an American (about 35-65K a year). And if thats the case, you have an unrealistic definition of what "fixed income" means.



How is this bleeding anyone dry? Do you rich people buy and sell properties left and right?

Like I said, and people who do this for a living and not just on a message board, this has a very limited impact on the overwhelming vast majority of Americans (elder or not).



again, whats this go to do with you being wrong about your argument?

I'm still waiting for you to see how an elderly couple on an fixed income can live in an extremely expensive house. Hint...it wasn't expensive when they bought it. You keep reaching for that rainbow; I have faith in you!