Rant: Gay marriage and control over one's estate

  • Being

    Posts: 191

    Sep 12, 2014 6:42 PM GMT
    I been thinking about the case about Paul Hard and David Fancher. I know that gay marriage is important issue to some, but I feel that the most important issue is the protection of one's estate. Alongside campaigning for same sex marriage, shouldn't we also try to other ways in which to use the law to our favor. Why should we try to just one solution to this problem, when they are plenty of others?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 1:10 PM GMT
    The only problem is that an overwhelming majority of gays are liberal democrats who believe that all assets should be given to the government at the time of death for redistribution.

    Built in to obamacare is a federal real estate tax not indexed to inflation which over time snares more and more property owners as home values increase.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 2:38 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidThe only problem is that an overwhelming majority of gays are liberal democrats who believe that all assets should be given to the government at the time of death for redistribution.

    Built in to obamacare is a federal real estate tax not indexed to inflation which over time snares more and more property owners as home values increase.

    .o they dont? What cointry do you live in where the majjority of gays believe all assets shouldbe given to the government? Not The United States thats for sure.
    Jeesh! Troll much?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 4:54 PM GMT
    I don't perceive a problem in "preserving one's estate." Everyone in the US, including all gay men, can write a will or trust that will determine how property is handled after death. In addition, married gays now have the benefit of the federal estate tax treatment accorded to straight married couples. If one can't get married in Alabama, you can travel to another state where it s now legal, and then the federal estate tax issues will be the same as for all other married couples. If a state like Alabama does not recognize same sex marriage, and imposes higher death taxes on gays than on married straights, that is an issue still to be worked on - in court or otherwise.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Sep 13, 2014 5:05 PM GMT
    mx5guynj said

    Built in to obamacare is a federal real estate tax not indexed to inflation which over time snares more and more property owners as home values increase.

    The Obamacare tax is on investment income (which includes profits on the sale of a house). It is just another example of how the democrats always seem to vote tax laws that screw the middle class. This time they just wanted money to fund the subsidies, and like always, they took it out of middle class hides, instead of the rich, who one would normally think would be the tax targets of so-called "liberal democrats." They could easily have placed a higher threshhold on the tax, so that it would apply only to, say, investment income over $1 million. Or they could have instituted a tax of a penny per share on all stock transactions which no one but the ultra rich and investment companies would notice. But no, the democrats, talk as much as they do, never want to offend the ultra rich by making them pay their fair share of taxes. So much easier to go on screwing the middle class of the country. The democrats are not "liberal" at all when it comes to taxes.

    Just wait - in a couple years these so-called "liberal" democrats will vote to cut social security or increase the retirement age of laborers to 70+ - knowing that many of them will not live that long. The liberalness of the democratic party is as genuine as the sewn-in smile on their house majority leader.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Sep 13, 2014 5:42 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidThe only problem is that an overwhelming majority of gays are liberal democrats who believe that all assets should be given to the government at the time of death for redistribution.

    Built in to obamacare is a federal real estate tax not indexed to inflation which over time snares more and more property owners as home values increase.


    Given that the federal government effectively pays the middle and upper classes to buy homes, I have no problem with them recouping some of the profit. Especially when it frees me from paying for the poor's ER trips (for things that could be covered by a trip a PCP) through my insurance premiums. I'm particularly happy my premiums have dropped without a subsidy. Then again, I live in a blue state that cooperated with the ACA's implementation. This might be different in states like Georgia whose rural healthcare system is collapsing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 6:14 PM GMT
    Suetonius said...just another example of how the democrats always seem to vote tax laws that screw the middle class. ... They could easily have placed a higher threshhold on the tax...


    http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-s-tax-home-sales-nothing-new
    ...Tax on Home Sales is Nothing New...This “net investment tax” is an additional 3.8 percent tax levied on the sale of any asset that results in a capital gain as long as your adjusted gross income is over $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples....


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
    ...the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year...


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 6:27 PM GMT
    Suetonius said... But no, the democrats, talk as much as they do, never want to offend the ultra rich by making them pay their fair share of taxes. So much easier to go on screwing the middle class of the country. The democrats are not "liberal" at all when it comes to taxes....


    Distribution of the Wealth During Presidential Administrations

    43gb_header_sm.jpg?1250888303
    2001-2008a.jpg

    42bc_header_sm.jpg?1250887359
    1993-2001.jpg

    41gb_header_sm.jpg?1250887249
    1989-1993.jpg

    40rr_header_sm.jpg?1250886929
    1981-1989.jpg

    39jc_header_sm.jpg?1250886567
    1977-1981.jpg

    38gf_header_sm.jpg?1250886356
    1974-1977.jpg

    37rn_header_sm.jpg?1250885880
    1969-1974.jpg

    36lj_header_sm.jpg?1250885677
    1963-1969.jpg

    35jk_header.jpg?1250885463
    1961-1963.jpg

    34de_header_sm.jpg?1250885267
    1953-1961.jpg

    33ht_header_sm.jpg?1250884801
    1945-1953.jpg

    32fr_header_sm.jpg?1250884571
    1933-1945.jpg

    31hh_header_sm.jpg?1250881969
    1929-1933.jpg
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Sep 13, 2014 8:15 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    Suetonius said...just another example of how the democrats always seem to vote tax laws that screw the middle class. ... They could easily have placed a higher threshhold on the tax...


    http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-s-tax-home-sales-nothing-new
    ...Tax on Home Sales is Nothing New...This “net investment tax” is an additional 3.8 percent tax levied on the sale of any asset that results in a capital gain as long as your adjusted gross income is over $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples....


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
    ...the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year...

    Brilliant - almost. Except, that if you have an income of only $60,000, and you have lived in your house for 30 years, and sell it when you retire and have a $500,000 gain that you hoped to put into another house and use for retirement - you now have an adjusted gross income for that year of $560,000 - and you will be paying the Obamacare tax for that year; but you are still barely in the middle class. They could have exempted home sales from the calculations. And a $500,000 gain on the sale of a house after 20-30 years is nothing if you live in California, New York, New Jersey, and most large urban areas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 8:23 PM GMT
    Suetonius saidBrilliant - almost. Except, that if you have an income of only $60,000, and you have lived in your house for 30 years, and sell it when you retire and have a $500,000 gain that you hoped to put into another house and use for retirement - you now have an adjusted gross income for that year of $560,000 - and you will be paying the Obamacare tax for that year; but you are still barely in the middle class. They could have exempted home sales from the calculations. And a $500,000 gain on the sale of a house after 20-30 years is nothing if you live in California, New York, New Jersey, and most large urban areas.


    http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-s-tax-home-sales-nothing-new

    Once you sell your home, any profits over the first $500,000 are already subject to a capital gains tax. And now those profits will have an additional 3.8% tax to fund Obamacare.”


    So by your extremely excellent example, you'd pay ZERO extra. Thank you so much for enlightening us.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 13, 2014 9:37 PM GMT
    Being saidI been thinking about the case about Paul Hard and David Fancher. I know that gay marriage is important issue to some, but I feel that the most important issue is the protection of one's estate. Alongside campaigning for same sex marriage, shouldn't we also try to other ways in which to use the law to our favor. Why should we try to just one solution to this problem, when they are plenty of others?



    I just completed a will and a revocable living trust, which dictate who gets all of my stuff, and my relatives are not included.
    I was told that the only way excluding relatives could be a problem was if one had children...
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Sep 13, 2014 11:14 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    Suetonius saidBrilliant - almost. Except, that if you have an income of only $60,000, and you have lived in your house for 30 years, and sell it when you retire and have a $500,000 gain that you hoped to put into another house and use for retirement - you now have an adjusted gross income for that year of $560,000 - and you will be paying the Obamacare tax for that year; but you are still barely in the middle class. They could have exempted home sales from the calculations. And a $500,000 gain on the sale of a house after 20-30 years is nothing if you live in California, New York, New Jersey, and most large urban areas.


    http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-s-tax-home-sales-nothing-new

    Once you sell your home, any profits over the first $500,000 are already subject to a capital gains tax. And now those profits will have an additional 3.8% tax to fund Obamacare.”


    So by your extremely excellent example, you'd pay ZERO extra. Thank you so much for enlightening us.

    You ought to be more careful in what you read online. That figure is wrong. The $500,000 you just referred to is for two people (a married couple); for all of us gay guys who are single, and for married guys who have not both lived in the same house with their partner for two years, you already have to pay tax on what is over $250,000, NOT $500,000.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 11:19 PM GMT
    Well, you know, antijock's perception is fucked.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 11:28 PM GMT
    Webster666 said
    Being saidI been thinking about the case about Paul Hard and David Fancher. I know that gay marriage is important issue to some, but I feel that the most important issue is the protection of one's estate. Alongside campaigning for same sex marriage, shouldn't we also try to other ways in which to use the law to our favor. Why should we try to just one solution to this problem, when they are plenty of others?



    I just completed a will and a revocable living trust, which dictate who gets all of my stuff, and my relatives are not included.
    I was told that the only way excluding relatives could be a problem was if one had children...

    Probably not true for anywhere in the states (always best to consult a lawyer when doing a will - the state you're domiciled in controls what law applies). You can't disinherit children in France - at least that used to be the rule - but you can disinherit them in England and generally in the states - you just have to be careful how it is done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 11:32 PM GMT
    Suetonius said

    So by your extremely excellent example, you'd pay ZERO extra. Thank you so much for enlightening us.

    You ought to be more careful in what you read online. That figure is wrong. The $500,000 you just referred to is for two people (a married couple); for all of us gay guys who are single, and for married guys who have not both lived in the same house with their partner for two years, you already have to pay tax on what is over $250,000, NOT $500,000.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/04/07/is-there-home-sale-tax-to-pay-for-obamacare/
    the health care bill does impose a 3.8% Medicare tax on high-income taxpayers who exceed a total household net-investment income -- a total which could conceivably include some of the proceeds from a home sale. However, while this Medicare tax will be applied to households with an adjusted gross income of $200,000 or more for individuals, or $250,000 or more for married couples, it typically won't include capital gains resulting from the sale of a home, providing that home is a primary residence and not a vacation or rental home.

    Why? Because the capital gains tax exclusion rule for sales of a primary home -- $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for couples -- will remain. In other words, if the profit realized from the sale of the home falls below those capital gains exclusion totals, then it can't be tacked on to that household's net-investment income tally. Hence, that 3.8% Medicare tax would not apply.

    If the gains from the sale of the house do exceed the $250,000 or $500,000 thresholds, they will be added to the household's net-income total, which is subject to that 3.8% Medicare tax. All told, however, that tax will fall on a relative few -- typically, households with large incomes from other sources
    .

    Not, typically, the middle class, as you have wrongly attempted to mischaracterize the Democratic party.

    I hadn't realized you were talking about spending 30 years in a house alone. How sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2014 3:56 AM GMT
    Antijock,

    Cool "Distribution of Wealth During Presidential Administrations" graphics.

    StephenOABC