ObamaCare Hidden Tax on Home Sales

"Pass the bill and we'll then find out what is in it" Nancy Pelosi

Do you really think it is fair to hide such a tax in legislation and not tell the American people??

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,”
President Obama, September 12, 2008

>>Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes **a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income of “high-income” taxpayers which could apply to proceeds from the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income, depending on your individual circumstances and any capital gains tax exclusions**. Importantly, the “high income” thresholds are not indexed for inflation so will reach increasing numbers of middle-class taxpayers over time.(No definition of what a high income earner might be, ask yourself could you afford to give away 8-10% of a home sale to a tax and real estate commission?)

In February 2010, 5.02 million homes were sold, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). On any given day, the sale of a house, townhome, condominium, co-op, or income from a rental property could slam middle-income families with a new tax they can’t afford.

***This new ObamaCare tax is the first time the government will apply a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income. This new tax on home sales and unearned income and other Medicare taxes raise taxes more than $210 billion to pay for ObamaCare.*** The National Association of Realtors called this new Medicare tax on unearned income “destructive” and “ill-advised” and warned it would hurt job creation.

In case you missed the first of the ObamaCare taxes....

Tax on tanning costs $2.7 billion

ObamaCare’s first tax increase-a 10 percent tax-starts today. This $2.7 billion tax is the>> first of ObamaCare’s $569 billion tax increase.<<

The new tax adds 10 percent to the cost of tanning services businesses provide. Some 30 million Americans visit a tanning salon at least once a year and 75 percent of the employees and customers are women, according to industry sources.

Out of the approximately 19,000 professional indoor tanning salons, more than 50 percent are owned by women and employ approximately 160,000 workers.

According to this> Wall Street Journal article<, ObamaCare’s tanning tax is causing all kinds of problems for business owners who provide tanning services as well as other products or those who include tanning services as part of a gym membership.

wisdom wrote:

In case you missed the first of the ObamaCare taxes....
Tax on tanning costs $2.7 billion
ObamaCare’s first tax increase-a 10 percent tax-starts today. This $2.7 billion tax is the>> first of ObamaCare’s $569 billion tax increase.<<
The new tax adds 10 percent to the cost of tanning services businesses provide. Some 30 million Americans visit a tanning salon at least once a year and 75 percent of the employees and customers are women, according to industry sources.
Out of the approximately 19,000 professional indoor tanning salons, more than 50 percent are owned by women and employ approximately 160,000 workers.
According to this> Wall Street Journal article<, ObamaCare’s tanning tax is causing all kinds of problems for business owners who provide tanning services as well as other products or those who include tanning services as part of a gym membership.

This is a luxury why not tax it. It also has proven to increase cancer risk. Smokers have to pay an extra tax why not tanners. If you choose to do something harmful then yes pay the extra tax.

I guess you have enough income to toss around that being taxed on everything you do is really not a problem on your income....must be nice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

wisdom wrote:

I guess you have enough income to toss around that being taxed on everything you do is really not a problem on your income....must be nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

You really do have a comprehension problem.He didn't say anything that would provoke a statement like that.Don't want to pay tax on something,don't buy it.Simple.As far as tanning,don't want to pay a tax?Then by all means,get a lawn chair or a beach towel and lay in the sun.IT'S FREE!!!!

wisdom wrote:

I guess you have enough income to toss around that being taxed on everything you do is really not a problem on your income....must be nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Let me get this straight you are against Obama health care and you don't want to pay for Medicare. You don't want people to be held accountable for their own actions.
If you plan to do something with your income that can be a hazard to your health then yes you should be taxed.

No I am against ObamaCare, it is about freedoms of choice and the freedom to suffer the consequences of your own actions. Do you want every aspect of your life as well as your health taxed? Do you want to be assessed a sugar tax on beverages, on candy bars, do you want a cholesterol tax added to your McDonalds bill. How about a dye tax on your hair job, lord knows what those chemicals are doing to your body. How about an exogenous chemicals tax for ChemLawn, we don't know for sure what that is doing to our he alt.

Perhaps you will be happy with the nanny state you wish to create. Take a look at schools that go exclusively to healthy vegetables, white milk only..the waste becomes phenomenal..it IS about the right to choose.

People need to be educated about their decisions, that is as far as I want you, the government, anybody involved in my life, my healthcare. I guess you are happy with all the taxes, even hidden taxes on home sales, as well as the government forcing religious institutions to pay for health coverage that includes contraception and abortions against their religious doctrine? Does that cross any of your comfort boundaries, comrade?

wisdom wrote:

No I am against ObamaCare, it is about freedoms of choice and the freedom to suffer the consequences of your own actions. Do you want every aspect of your life as well as your health taxed? Do you want to be assessed a sugar tax on beverages, on candy bars, do you want a cholesterol tax added to your McDonalds bill. How about a dye tax on your hair job, lord knows what those chemicals are doing to your body. How about an exogenous chemicals tax for ChemLawn, we don't know for sure what that is doing to our he alt.
Perhaps you will be happy with the nanny state you wish to create. Take a look at schools that go exclusively to healthy vegetables, white milk only..the waste becomes phenomenal..it IS about the right to choose.
People need to be educated about their decisions, that is as far as I want you, the government, anybody involved in my life, my healthcare. I guess you are happy with all the taxes, even hidden taxes on home sales, as well as the government forcing religious institutions to pay for health coverage that includes contraception and abortions against their religious doctrine? Does that cross any of your comfort boundaries, comrade?

Health insurance such be provided by employers and it such provide services that the person needs with no regard for what their employers views are. Does anyone have the right to tell anyone rather to use birth control or not? No.
But not all employers offer insurance so what about these people do you think they do not deserve medical services.
If the taxes are used to for medical coverage I do not have a problem with them. Especially since these are luxuries don't necessities so you choose to harm yourself.
The real estate tax is for people who have an income of over $1 million dollars who already pay a lower tax rate than the average working class person.

If you read the initial article, it does not define what a high income is when selling a property. If you live in most mid sized cities your home may be in the 150,000 range then if you have 2 individuals working that may very well put you into a high income tax range on your home sale..again, can you take a 10% hit on selling your house because it is buried in the ObamaCare bill. Don't you feel a little betrayed that this is not common knowledge? It is all a part of the $210 BILLION in TAXES NEEDED to pay for ObamaCare and has any government plan ever come in on budget...and you think our economy is going to be any where near full steam at that point?

If an employer is choosing health coverage for their patients, they should be able to pay for a plan that best fits their economic situation as a company, is fair and equitable for the worker, and is aligned with the companies mission, vision and values, and the government should have no say in that benefit provided to the worker.

Luxuries do not harm the individual it is the excesses of luxuries that are the problem, so why tax the middle class on these issues...O'Berry said he wasn't going to raise taxes and the FIRST TAX INCREASE was ON CIGARETTES...who do you think are the smokers...lower and middle class individuals, ya don't think that hurts their disposable income. Again, education, not nanny state. The Democrats try to modify behavior through taxation, if you think that is fine don't bitch when the start taking away more of your income...by the way, if that is your position, hopefully they will put some bridge tolls around Louisville and see how that impacts some folks.

wisdom wrote:

No I am against ObamaCare, it is about freedoms of choice and the freedom to suffer the consequences of your own actions. Do you want every aspect of your life as well as your health taxed? Do you want to be assessed a sugar tax on beverages, on candy bars, do you want a cholesterol tax added to your McDonalds bill. How about a dye tax on your hair job, lord knows what those chemicals are doing to your body. How about an exogenous chemicals tax for ChemLawn, we don't know for sure what that is doing to our he alt.
Perhaps you will be happy with the nanny state you wish to create. Take a look at schools that go exclusively to healthy vegetables, white milk only..the waste becomes phenomenal..it IS about the right to choose.
People need to be educated about their decisions, that is as far as I want you, the government, anybody involved in my life, my healthcare. I guess you are happy with all the taxes, even hidden taxes on home sales, as well as the government forcing religious institutions to pay for health coverage that includes contraception and abortions against their religious doctrine? Does that cross any of your comfort boundaries, comrade?

I have always proclaim the freedom of choice.

How can u talk about freedom of choice when u r against abortion.
u will not suffer the consequences of someone elses actions.

U r against unions. The right of a worker to choice.

U r against eveyone having the right to vote

U r not for freedom of choice. U want to dictate to us how to live

Yes, I am morally against abortions, though I gleefully support them for liberal democrats...I have posted that and encourage that.

I am against unions and union thuggery, as it does not allow for a worker to choose between working and union/non-union membership in some states. If it is an open shop, great, what ever floats your boat. Unions add to the cost of goods and services by that employer. Go to Wal-Mart and see how much American goods they carry. When Wal-Mart first opened that was their big pitch was of American goods at a low price. How times have changed.

I am not against everyones right to vote, illegal citizens do not have the right to vote. The uninformed should do the informed citizenry a favor and stay at home watching TV. It is the uninformed citizens that gave us Hopey and Changey.

I am for freedom of choice, apparently you failed to read my aforementioned comments in previous posts. You simply jumped on here as to post your illogical and unsubstantiated remarks. I have freedom of choice, and that is to disregard you.

wisdom wrote:

Yes, I am morally against abortions, though I gleefully support them for liberal democrats...I have posted that and encourage that.
I am against unions and union thuggery, as it does not allow for a worker to choose between working and union/non-union membership in some states. If it is an open shop, great, what ever floats your boat. Unions add to the cost of goods and services by that employer. Go to Wal-Mart and see how much American goods they carry. When Wal-Mart first opened that was their big pitch was of American goods at a low price. How times have changed.
I am not against everyones right to vote, illegal citizens do not have the right to vote. The uninformed should do the informed citizenry a favor and stay at home watching TV. It is the uninformed citizens that gave us Hopey and Changey.
I am for freedom of choice, apparently you failed to read my aforementioned comments in previous posts. You simply jumped on here as to post your illogical and unsubstantiated remarks. I have freedom of choice, and that is to disregard you.

No u don't I don't care how many times you say it.

teaparty is not for freedom of chioce. They want to dictate to us how to live and what we should believe. Dictators!!

t

wisdom wrote:

If you read the initial article, it does not define what a high income is when selling a property. If you live in most mid sized cities your home may be in the 150,000 range then if you have 2 individuals working that may very well put you into a high income tax range on your home sale..again, can you take a 10% hit on selling your house because it is buried in the ObamaCare bill. Don't you feel a little betrayed that this is not common knowledge? It is all a part of the $210 BILLION in TAXES NEEDED to pay for ObamaCare and has any government plan ever come in on budget...and you think our economy is going to be any where near full steam at that point?
If an employer is choosing health coverage for their patients, they should be able to pay for a plan that best fits their economic situation as a company, is fair and equitable for the worker, and is aligned with the companies mission, vision and values, and the government should have no say in that benefit provided to the worker.
Luxuries do not harm the individual it is the excesses of luxuries that are the problem, so why tax the middle class on these issues...O'Berry said he wasn't going to raise taxes and the FIRST TAX INCREASE was ON CIGARETTES...who do you think are the smokers...lower and middle class individuals, ya don't think that hurts their disposable income. Again, education, not nanny state. The Democrats try to modify behavior through taxation, if you think that is fine don't bitch when the start taking away more of your income...by the way, if that is your position, hopefully they will put some bridge tolls around Louisville and see how that impacts some folks.

If you read the actual legislation it does state one million or more.
No employers should not be able to decide what services an employee receive when they visit the doctor and whatever treatment is necessary should be covered.
If a smoker chooses to smoke regardless of their income then yes they should be taxed because they are well aware of the affects of the smoking on their health.
As for the toll bridge thing that is kind of funny and the government should cut all money for the highway systems and then the state can make all roads tolls road and you have to pay at each exit to use the interstates.

P.M. Can you tell me where you see that amount listed?

I am sorry I will correct myself it wasn't one million it is half a million.

Had been awhile since I read the first proposal but I still believe that will not affect most Americans.

wisdom wrote:

P.M. Can you tell me where you see that amount listed?

Read HR 3590 you can download it.

The home sale profits would need to exceed $500,000 for a couple making $250,000 per year. A single would need to make $200,000 per year before the tax would be imposed. Which is why the Medicare tax will not be imposed upon 97% of the population.

wisdom wrote:

If you read the initial article, it does not define what a high income is when selling a property. If you live in most mid sized cities your home may be in the 150,000 range then if you have 2 individuals working that may very well put you into a high income tax range on your home sale..again, can you take a 10% hit on selling your house because it is buried in the ObamaCare bill. Don't you feel a little betrayed that this is not common knowledge? It is all a part of the $210 BILLION in TAXES NEEDED to pay for ObamaCare and has any government plan ever come in on budget...and you think our economy is going to be any where near full steam at that point?
If an employer is choosing health coverage for their patients, they should be able to pay for a plan that best fits their economic situation as a company, is fair and equitable for the worker, and is aligned with the companies mission, vision and values, and the government should have no say in that benefit provided to the worker.
Luxuries do not harm the individual it is the excesses of luxuries that are the problem, so why tax the middle class on these issues...O'Berry said he wasn't going to raise taxes and the FIRST TAX INCREASE was ON CIGARETTES...who do you think are the smokers...lower and middle class individuals, ya don't think that hurts their disposable income. Again, education, not nanny state. The Democrats try to modify behavior through taxation, if you think that is fine don't bitch when the start taking away more of your income...by the way, if that is your position, hopefully they will put some bridge tolls around Louisville and see how that impacts some folks.

a Medicare tax that would apply to approximately 3% of home transactions. The home sale profits would need to exceed $500,000 for a couple making $250,000 per year. A single would need to make $200,000 per year before the tax would be imposed. Which is why the Medicare tax will not be imposed upon 97% of the population.
A quick summary: If a couple sold a home for $550,000 profit (profit, i.e. after their mortgage(s) and realtor fees are paid) and together made more than $250,000 per year, they would have to pay $1,900 (3.8% of $50,000) towards the Medicare tax

well wrote:

<quoted text>
I have always proclaim the freedom of choice.
How can u talk about freedom of choice when u r against abortion.
u will not suffer the consequences of someone elses actions.
U r against unions. The right of a worker to choice.
U r against eveyone having the right to vote
U r not for freedom of choice. U want to dictate to us how to live

Well......when "freedom of choice" takes a life while not saving a life then it is just a form of birth control....we have pills for that and rubber contrivances that a man can slip over his penis PRIOR to having sex.

Usually workers either join a union to get a job or they do not get the job.....so much for freedom of choice. and there is no problem with unions except that they do not belong in the public sector because I certainly do not want to pay for your retirement with MY tax dollars.....get it????????

and YES I am against EVERYONE having the right to vote. you have to be a CITIZEN of this country to do so. It says so in our constitution or whatever will be left of it by the time Obama and the current supreme court (justice) Roberts? are done with it.

Did you pay attention in school during civics class? Did they even have a civics class. Did you go to school.

wisdom wrote:

The new tax adds 10 percent to the cost of tanning services businesses provide.

Is this something most of us need to be concerned about? Please!