|
|
Post by robains on Sept 17, 2004 18:15:28 GMT -5
WTF is wrong with the is country?? Everything else in the US is taxed thru the nose, yet someone decided that so long as you've lived in your home for 2 years any profits you make from it will not be taxed when you sell it? Huh?? What crack head decided this was fair given our current taxation policy?
How the hell is this fair? In CA people are making $50K-$500K profits from their home sales and the home swapping game has gone crazy these past few years (due to interest rates). If our lovely government wants to find money for education, power, job creation, military funding, then they should be taxing this huge potential source or internal revenue and stop increasing Medicare, Soc Sec, Auto Registration fees, etc. etc. etc.
Why did CA jack up car registration fees to pay for power problems when there is this obvious HUGE source of potential tax revenue? Were cars (operated mostly on gasoline) somehow consuming more power than a home?? Homes were the big consumers of the power (AC) so shouldn't the home owners be the ones taxed to pay for it rather than jacking up auto reg fees?
It makes no sense, every other aspect of US life, where a profit is involved, is taxed -- why not this one??
I'm so sick of the US governement's jacked up tax policies aimed squarely at screwing anyone that does NOT fit the "family values" criteria. If you don't have kids you get screwed, if you don't own a home you get screwed -- what happened to EQUAL & FAIR treatment for all?
Make taxes uniformed and equal -- there are way too many "special tax exemptions" and other "tax benefits" that are simply wrong.
To all home owners, next time you complain about bad schools, crappy roads, power, the government, etc. just remember you got to keep ALL of your profit from your last home sale. In CA that is A LOT of freakin' tax free money.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Sept 24, 2004 15:54:05 GMT -5
I have some questions for you as to the specifics of this tax policy you speak of. Is this something that was passed by the state of California, or is this a federal policy. I haven't heard about it till now. If its a state law, it would only protect the profits from a state income tax. The sellers would still have to pay a federal captial gains tax on the profit. Normally you have to pay a capital gains tax whenever you sell property. After that, the "take home" profit has to be reported as personal income and is then taxed again when you file your income taxes. I'm just curious, profits from home sales are usually taxed twice, once with capital gains and again as income. I doubt very seriously that these profits are being protected from all forms of taxation. Please specify.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 24, 2004 16:22:29 GMT -5
What are you talking about. That certainly is not my understanding of the law. Are you talking about a state law?
When you sell a home, you have two years in which to reinvest the money in other real estate, before you have to pay capital gains taxes on it. Most people sell their home and buy a new one, so they don't have to pay the capital gains tax. If you buy a cheaper home, you have to pay capital gains tax on the money you didn't reinvest. I believe you are allowed to avoid it once, so as not to penalize older retired people who downsize.
|
|
|
|
Post by robains on Sept 24, 2004 16:23:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 24, 2004 17:01:44 GMT -5
I'm not going to cry in my beer over this one. Most people sell their home and buy a new one. If they had to pay taxes on their old home when buying a new one, most of us would be stuck in starter homes forever.
I don't think any of us should be coughing up more in taxes. I think the federal government should follow the constitution and get the hell out of a lot of the areas in which they have no business collecting and spending money in the first place. People don't pay taxes on their foodstamps and aid to dependent children, either.
Me thinks it sounds like you've been bitten by the class envy bug.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Sept 24, 2004 17:12:35 GMT -5
My question was more about people who do real estate speculation. My father bought a rental house 20 years ago. He put it on a fifteen year mortgage. His plan was to rent it out until it was paid for and then sell it for a profit to pay for our college. He decided not to sell it because he was going to get sacked by capital gains taxes. He's still renting it out today. That was the source of my inquiry. I guess I'm not on the same page as ya'll are. Anyways, thanks for the info. I'm gonna research it more.
|
|
|
|
Post by robains on Sept 24, 2004 17:42:22 GMT -5
Class envy?? Where is that apparent?? I earn well into the 6 digits so what are you talking about? I agree, the state and fed do tax everything, except for this little gem of a loop hole. My question -- why not the sales of a home? My point -- be consistant with taxation laws, don't apply taxation to places where the revenue/profit stream isn't. I'd rahter see less taxes also, who wouldn't -- but that is not the point. The point is that taxation is being applied inconsistantly and unfairly -- taxation is targeting groups of people that don't necessarily believe in "family values". Where is the logic in lets tax every other form of income except profit on house sales? This smells much to much like "family values" and this is how American's should conform -- 2 kids, dog, cat, 2 cars, house, and local christian church. If they confirm to this, then they get a tax break, if they don't we rinse them dry until they leave. Well guess what, that isn't mentioned in the constitution. For those that don't want a house or condo because they choose not to, why should they bare the burden of taxation -- any and all income/profit made from other sources is taxed why is a home excluded? And because I too can sell my home for a huge tax free profit (as I live in CA) -- this does NOT make me feel good -- espeically in a state where it can't even come up with the money to provide a consistant power source. I've lived in third world countries that have less rolling blackouts than CA. Then I hear how people bitch about roads, education, water, power, etc. in CA and these are the same people that just used some of their 100K house sale profits buy that 2nd BMW. Oh my heart bleeds for these poor poor folk  |
|
|
|
Post by robains on Sept 24, 2004 17:51:14 GMT -5
A 2nd home is not permitted in the exclusion. For the very reason it is a SECOND home. Your folks will also have to pay for tax on rental income.
But there again I had to pay for my own education which required I maitain a part time job thru university. I was not fortunate enough to have someone pay for my education nor obtain a scholarship worth enough to pay for all my schooling.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Sept 24, 2004 21:01:31 GMT -5
Listen here Robbie boy,
I asked you a simple question about the tax code as it pertains to property transactions. I asked you to elaborate on your initial post because I was genuinely interested in the subject. I even gave you a personal perspective on how these tax policies have affected me, and you responded with a personal attack on my parents and how they funded my college. Read my previous post again. My parents had HOPED to fund my college with profits from real estate speculation, but they couldn't afford to sell the house because of capital gains taxes. I went to college on a baseball scholarship coupled with an academic scholarship. I make a solid 5 figures, much less than you. Unless of course, you're lying, which I think you are. I can't imagine anyone paying you 6 figures to do anything. If you were smart enough to earn six figures, I wouldn't be replying to your idiotic posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 26, 2004 0:28:00 GMT -5
First if all, I'm not a libertarian in my thinking. I am a social conservative who believes that not only can the government legislate morality, it has an obligation to do so. The tax code should reflect "family values." That is reflected in many ways like the child deductions and interest on house payments.
You didn't respond, you just flew off the handle. I ask you again. How would anyone be able to afford to move to a bigger house and get out of their first starter home if the money they spent on their house was taxed, again! Most of us aren't making a six figure salary and wouldn't have wanted to be stuck forever in the two bedroom shack we buy in our twenties. What you propose would literally kill the real estate industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by robains on Sept 26, 2004 12:27:03 GMT -5
TNRighty,
I'm Sorry you feel I've made a personal attack on you. But in life you will learn that a persons comments will be used as a position in a discussion/debate. You seem VERY sensitive to this issue, but as you mature I think you'll be far less sensitive to exactly what consistutes a "personal attack".
I do have to ask:
1. Why were you asking for clarification of this tax exclusion? Your messages implies that you either don't believe your parents or you think they are wrong?
My comment was probably not relevant and I agree should not have been included. However, this is a Rant forum where people rant -- so be aware of the context from which you read/post.
Why I said what I said is based on a severe problem I see in a "spoiled" younger generation of kids that are not hitting the working world. They enter the job market and start expecting immediate benefits, flexible hours, and a selection of projects that they want to work on not what is needed to be worked on, etc. etc. This generation is hurting America's ability to produce. This is a generation of younger people that were used to getting everything they wanted as the economy was good. If they don't get it, they quit and becom job floaters for a while. This may or may not apply to you and you may or may or may not agree with it -- but this is NOT a personal attack on you.
MO,
Is it written is the constition that because you buy a home you are somehow entitled to upgrade to a bigger home?? Do you really believe that?
To move up in life you work harder and smarter and find out how to earn more money, this is what permits you to move to a larger home and certainly should NOT be because of some very unfair taxation practice. Isn't that what capitalism is about? Or are you a socialist/communist?
Family values has NO business in politics for the very reason it is too generic, too undefined, to easily manipulated to benefit a few, and way to closely tied to religion. Religion has absolutely NO business in US government. I would hope at the very least people would look around and see the dangers of religion on our planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 26, 2004 13:12:30 GMT -5
I'll assume you mean the Constitution. Property rights are a major element of a free people and our founding documents. You make it sound as if all money and property belongs to the government and it's up to them to decide how much of it we should be able to keep. What is unconstitutional is taxing property to begin with! We are already serfs on our own land due to property taxes. If you want to follow the Constitution, the federal government needs to get out of education, broadcasting, medicine, art and a whole host of other things our Constitution does not give them any right to practice their bureaucratic tyranny on. Then they wouldn't need to keep finding new ways to steal from us. It is the socialist/ communists who are belly aching for more government control through more confiscatory taxes. You're free to pay how ever much of your six figure salary you wish. Get your filthy hands out of my pocket. Your crowning about family values and religion is irrelevant to the topic. Heathens buy houses, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by robains on Sept 26, 2004 13:56:09 GMT -5
Oh geez, not another lets see if we can get any spelling mistakes to somehow invalidate the response. You still didn't answer the question, you went off on some other tangent about "Free people".
We live in a society, by definition our freedoms will be compromised. You sound like a Nomad. But I do agree that our government is way too deep into areas they should not be.
But you seem to be missing my point, the lack of tax is fine with me (for income from home sales). It is the unfair and inconsistent taxation of a specific group of people that is my issue. If these folks (me included) are not going to be taxed for home sale profits, then neither should people be taxed on selling a car 2nd or 3rd or 4th time, nor for earning money on other investments (property or not) -- it is all income.
What our government seems to do is find ways to tax or not tax a specific area where they think they can get away with it with the least amount of public noise. They will tax areas that should NOT be taxed and they will skip over other areas that should be taxed with little or no consideration to the appropriateness of the tax. And tax can be defined in many ways, car registration, 1099, etc. etc.
As I've said before, a perfect example of inappropriate extraction of money is the now ex-governer Davis that increased car registration fees by 300% to pay for the CA's power problem. You tell me what has more affect on electrical power consumption -- a car or a house? The results were a successful removal of Davis from office. Public noise.
I do NOT want to ever see more taxes, and I do want to see application of taxes applied consistantly rather than target a group that will make the least public noise.
As much as I would like to pretend religion (specifically the Christian kind) doesn't play a role in our government -- it unfortunately does.
|
|
|
|
Post by americanfirst on Sept 30, 2004 11:21:41 GMT -5
Robrains how many individuals really pay capitol gains tax on the sale of a used car. Robrains how many people even report the sale of a used car. How many people even make a profit on the sale of a used car. Robrains how many people other than those in business to sell cars are able to a take a deduction for the purchase price of the car their going to sell. Robrains that's like asking people if the report income from a yard sale. Robrains is this a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by robains on Sept 30, 2004 12:44:25 GMT -5
What is with starting every sentence with Robrains? Who is that? My first name is Rob as per listed in my post if you had bothered to read them -- which you apparently didn't. Also, my userID is Robains not Robrains.
Car sales profits can and do happen all the time (especially classic/collector cars), but the point was sales of property/assets go on all the time (and are taxed with the exception of homes), whether you choose to report it or not to the IRS is NOT the issue. If you want to risk an audit (and/or fraud) that is up to you and really has no significance in this thread (which apparently you haven't read from the beginning).
The only joke I see is your response.
The purpose (once again) of this thread is the INCONSISTANT application of tax laws that are fundamentally unfair.
|
|
