Paul Krugman slams Art Laffer & Ayn Rand-type economics

[AmazonTania]

Right and neither is the CBO apparently. Can you show me where in the document you provided that recaptured basis counts as income? No. Because regaining your basis isn't income by any measure of income you fucking idiot.

The CBO document was just to show you the different income quintle threshold the Government computes. Which you have claimed, "The one you made up in your head." Nonetheless, I have already said these quintiles are not solely based on net income such as capital gains. This is measured based on gross income, which includes the proceeds from the sale of an asset. Because gross income is not limited to what cash is received, it doesn't change the dynamics of the term.

Deductions aren't offset by capital losses you idiot, capital losses ARE deductions (though if you go over the limit you have to put them off until future years).

Its pretty fucking simple.

BUY a 500k asset - (500k)
SELL it for 400k 400k
Net Gain/Loss (100k)

If that's the only asset sold in the year, you have a 100k loss, 3k of which may be immediately claimed, and 97k of which may offset gains or count as part of a 3k max loss in the future.

Yes... That's what I already said...

This doesn't take away from the tax that you how have $400,000 in taxable income from the asset you have just sold, which your losses will only allow to offset $3,000 for that taxable year, and each year after until you have exhausted your capital losses.

Good to know you've been keeping up all this time. Barely, but still.

 

[Kimura]

ROFL

You're like the guy who doesn't know what a "variable" is, telling us all that he is a professional programmer. Your ignorance is self-evident. Perhaps you had a job as an AP clerk or accountants helper, but you certainly do not have a background in economics.

You’re funny. You’re the one who seemed confused about nominal vs real variables. I actually participated in research as an undergraduate. I also have an MS in Economics. I’m trying to be cordial, you’re making it increasingly difficult.

Quote:
I'm talking about the Laffer Curve. It's pretty basic: you cut taxes, government revenue increases, thus improving the economy. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases. This is textbook Keynes, Art Laffer knows this for sure.

Again you demonstrate that you have no grasp of Keynes. You don't know anything about turns or multipliers and think that Keynes merely promoted redistribution of wealth - which is not at all what Keynes proposed.

Yes, Laffer advocates freeing capital as a means of initiating market activity. Keynes advocated deficit spending to put capital in the market as a means of initiating market activity. Same thing, right?

No, not even close.

Let me put this in really simply terms so that you might grasp it.

A field is on fire, two men, Mr. K and Mr. A both claim they can put the fire out. Mr. K says he needs to put water on the fire. Mr. A says he needs to put water on the fire. AHA you say, both advocate the same thing..

Well no, Mr. K says he should dump buckets of water in the center of the fire. Mr. A says he want to use a hose and spray the base of the fire inward. In fact, the two have vastly different approaches.

I’ve intimately familiar with the General Theory. If you read it, or didn’t any type of marginal study of the material, you’d realize it’s broken up into multiple books.

I’ll give a brief introduction – or an overview – so you can spare us with any more of your enlightening examples about Mr A and Mr. K.

First of all, he turned classical economic economics on its head. He introduced concepts such as liquidity preference, effective demand, consumption function, and marginal efficiency of capital among other things.

His central thesis in the General Theory being that the overall level of employment is directly related to aggregate demand. This throws the neoclassical view out the window. He basically said it was incorrect to assume that economies are capable of delivering full employment. His idea being that underinvestment and underemployment are the norm in an economy and that wage cuts will only exacerbate the problem.

As I pointed out before - your complaint is that while you got more, others got even more than you - so NO FAIR.

And your graphs - even slanted as they are by including the 08' crash and the Obama depression of 9-10 shows that all saw at least modest gains

It’s irrefutable that real wages have been declining over the three decades while productivity has increased. It’s not even arguable point among economists.

You're not "pointing it out," you making an erroneous claim based on your partisan bias in direct contradiction of established fact.

Oh really. So tax cuts that help increase aggregate demand isn’t out of the Keynes playbook? I suggest you call the chair of every econ department on earth. They’ve all been duped.
Here’s something that may help you: tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases. This is why it’s disingenuous to say you support deficit reductions but not tax increases. They both remove income from the economy, except they affect different income groups.

Thank god for Wiki, huh?

For fun, here is the top ten economic performers - in inflation adjusted, 2005 dollars;


1. Clinton, 1993-2001, $2.7 trillion.
2. George W. Bush, 2001-2009, $1.7 trillion.
3. Reagan, 1981-1989, $1.6 trillion.
4. Johnson, 1963-1969, $741 billion.
5. Nixon, 1969-1974, $628 billion.
6. Eisenhower, 1953-1961, $484 billion.
7. Carter, 1977-1981, $461 billion.
8. George H.W. Bush, 1989-1993, $401 billion.
9. Obama, 2009-2012, $325 billion.
10. Kennedy, 1961-1963, $310 billion.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...over-biggest-/

Funny thing, the top three all used Supply Side theories...

FDR sits at 31 - yeah, he was a fucking disaster.

__________________


And, what’s your point?

As I tried to point out, the entire supply-side era was distorted and terribly distributed throughout the economy. Those policies negatively affected wage earners. The data is freely available: the real incomes of wage earners decreased during the 1980s. If supply-side was such a resounding success, and this magnificent macroeconomic template, we should have seen an increase in real incomes from the very people producing the supply.

Where I do agree with Laffer is that inflation is a supply-side deal. For example, if the supply of real goods and services is abundant, then we won’t have an inflation problem. It’s not a byproduct of money or bank reserves. In point of fact, increased levels of bank reserves tend to lower interest rates and are deflationary.

This supply side nonsense is where this Administration has made a huge mistake. They don’t understand the monetary system and are pursuing policies which will decrease our ability to produce the real goods and services we require as a society. The end result will be shortages in the stuff we need, such as cars, homes, skilled workers, etc.

Yeah, FDR the satanic President, the President who defeated the Nazis and Axis Powers, was clearly a disaster. The continued historical revisionism about the New Deal continues to amuse me on daily basis. Sure, he made mistakes, mostly by listening to austerity ghouls back in 1937, but he wasn’t ideologically wedded to their ideas. Thanks to FDRs’ polices, the middle class become a numerical majority for the first time in US history. The Social Security Act, the Wagner Act, minimum wage laws, the government as employer of last resort, all came about under FDR.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you don't ascribe to the notion that Tax Cuts Solve Everything. Good.

No, in fact I believe stimulus of any sort does far less than advertised.

Tax cuts do far less damage that Keynesian deficit spending, but I'm not convinced that they are a panacea to downward trends in the business cycle. To be clear, high taxation is an impediment to economic growth, but the idea that a recession can be stopped through tax cuts is dubious.

And the economy was moving well before the bubble.

Not particularly so. 92' and 93' saw a very lethargic economy. The Clinton economy was not particularly impressive until his second term. In fact, one could say that the Republicans mitigated the tax increases and thus took the breaks off.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not sure what that has to do with the gains from productivity accruing to capital rather than labour. Profit margins are at all time highs. The percentage of profits to GDP are near all time highs. Private industry's debt to assets is relatively low.

While I acknowledge this is not a fair test, reduce GDP by annual debt accumulation and see if it looks so impressive? And yes, most debt is held by the government, but then, it is the citizenry who must repay it.

 

[Dot Com]

Did any of you rw'ers watch Krugman dominate the debate?

 

[Kimura]

So you don't ascribe to the notion that Tax Cuts Solve Everything. Good.

No, in fact I believe stimulus of any sort does far less than advertised.

Tax cuts do far less damage that Keynesian deficit spending, but I'm not convinced that they are a panacea to downward trends in the business cycle. To be clear, high taxation is an impediment to economic growth, but the idea that a recession can be stopped through tax cuts is dubious.

Deficits are the only way for the private sector to acquire net financial assets. They add net financial assets to the private sector which provides demand for real goods and services. This enables Americans to maintain income growth, which has allowed us to accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without running deficits. Taxation is basically a way to regulate aggregate demand at the end of the day. If aggregate demand is in the toilet, you can cut taxes to warm up a cooling economy. Personally, I'd like to see a payroll tax holiday for the next four quarters at a bare minimum.

Not particularly so. 92' and 93' saw a very lethargic economy. The Clinton economy was not particularly impressive until his second term. In fact, one could say that the Republicans mitigated the tax increases and thus took the breaks off.

I'm going to start a thread on the Goldilocks era. The surplus run the by government sector under Clinton actually caused the private sector to go into deficit. This effectively set the stage for the dotcom and housing bubble since it caused massive debt loads to be incurred to finance consumption.

 

[Oddball]

Deficits are the only way for the private sector to acquire net financial assets. They add net financial assets to the private sector which provides the demand for real goods and services. This enables Americans to maintain income growth, which has allowed us to accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without running deficits. Taxation is basically a way to regulate aggregate demand at the end of the day. If aggregate demand is in the toilet, you can cut taxes to warm up a cooling economy.

What a load of central planner ignoramus crap...Gubmint has no money of its own, so the deficits it runs have to be taken out of the private sector before they can be returned.

I suppose you think you can make the shallow end of the pool deeper by scooping out some water out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end, too.

I'm going to start a thread on the Goldilocks era.

Prolly a good idea, seeing as you believe that breaking the leg of the private sector then handing them a crutch is good for it.

The surplus run the by government sector under Clinton actually caused the private sector to go into deficit. This effectively set the stage for the dotcom and housing bubble since it caused massive debt loads to be incurred to finance consumption.

There was no surplus during the Clintoon era, so the whole premise is out the window.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Right and neither is the CBO apparently. Can you show me where in the document you provided that recaptured basis counts as income? No. Because regaining your basis isn't income by any measure of income you fucking idiot.

The CBO document was just to show you the different income quintle threshold the Government computes. Which you have claimed, "The one you made up in your head." Nonetheless, I have already said these quintiles are not solely based on net income such as capital gains. This is measured based on gross income, which includes the proceeds from the sale of an asset.

Gross income does not include cost basis you fucking dolt You are confusing gross income with gross revenues. Gross income is your total receipts MINUS your total expenses BEFORE taxes.

Gross Income Definition | Investopedia
Gross income in United States tax law is receipts and gains from all sources less cost of goods sold

Gross income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. An individual's total personal income before taking taxes or deductions into account.

2. A company's revenue minus cost of goods sold. Also called "gross margin" and "gross profit."

Gross Income Definition | Investopedia

For some reason you insist on defining words in a way that no one else defines them. Gross income in the case of selling real estate is the total sale price MINUS the amount paid for the house PLUS the amount that has been depreciated.

 

[kwc57]

Did any of you rw'ers watch Krugman dominate the debate?

Dominate? Lip licking, wild darting eyed Krugman couldn't dominate a BSDM hooker if he paid her to let him.

 

[AmazonTania]

Right and neither is the CBO apparently. Can you show me where in the document you provided that recaptured basis counts as income? No. Because regaining your basis isn't income by any measure of income you fucking idiot.

The CBO document was just to show you the different income quintle threshold the Government computes. Which you have claimed, "The one you made up in your head." Nonetheless, I have already said these quintiles are not solely based on net income such as capital gains. This is measured based on gross income, which includes the proceeds from the sale of an asset.

Gross income does not include cost basis you fucking dolt You are confusing gross income with gross revenues. Gross income is your total receipts MINUS your total expenses BEFORE taxes.

Gross Income Definition | Investopedia
Gross income in United States tax law is receipts and gains from all sources less cost of goods sold

Gross income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. An individual's total personal income before taking taxes or deductions into account.

2. A company's revenue minus cost of goods sold. Also called "gross margin" and "gross profit."

Gross Income Definition | Investopedia

For some reason you insist on defining words in a way that no one else defines them. Gross income in the case of selling real estate is the total sale price MINUS the amount paid for the house PLUS the amount that has been depreciated.

I love it when people don't read their own sources:

"Except as otherwise provided" by law, Gross income means "all income from whatever source," and is not limited to cash received.

Any proceeds received is gross income. Gross income includes gains from disposable assets, including capital gains or losses. If it is not a gain, it is still a source of income, and you are obligated to report it. Even if the gain is earned from criminal activity.

You. Are. Wrong.

But thank you for wasting time straying from your initial point. Whatever that may have been.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The CBO document was just to show you the different income quintle threshold the Government computes. Which you have claimed, "The one you made up in your head." Nonetheless, I have already said these quintiles are not solely based on net income such as capital gains. This is measured based on gross income, which includes the proceeds from the sale of an asset.

Gross income does not include cost basis you fucking dolt You are confusing gross income with gross revenues. Gross income is your total receipts MINUS your total expenses BEFORE taxes.
Gross income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. An individual's total personal income before taking taxes or deductions into account.

2. A company's revenue minus cost of goods sold. Also called "gross margin" and "gross profit."

Gross Income Definition | Investopedia

For some reason you insist on defining words in a way that no one else defines them. Gross income in the case of selling real estate is the total sale price MINUS the amount paid for the house PLUS the amount that has been depreciated.

I love it when people don't read their own sources:

"Except as otherwise provided" by law, Gross income means "all income from whatever source," and is not limited to cash received.

And the law provides that cost basis is subtracted from the proceeds of a home sale. Actually the law provides you don't even have to report the sale of your primary residence unless your capital gain is in excess of $250,000. My holy fuck shit you are stupid. I sure as hell hope you don't do your own taxes, you are going to fuck yourself over big time.

Any proceeds received is gross income. Gross income includes gains from disposable assets, including capital gains or losses. If it is not a gain, it is still a source of income, and you are obligated to report it. Even if the gain is earned from criminal activity.

You. Are. Wrong.

But thank you for wasting time straying from your initial point. Whatever that may have been.

Great. Then show me the place on my tax form where I should report the sale of my home as income.

 

[Kimura]

Deficits are the only way for the private sector to acquire net financial assets. They add net financial assets to the private sector which provides the demand for real goods and services. This enables Americans to maintain income growth, which has allowed us to accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without running deficits. Taxation is basically a way to regulate aggregate demand at the end of the day. If aggregate demand is in the toilet, you can cut taxes to warm up a cooling economy.

What a load of central planner ignoramus crap...Gubmint has no money of its own, so the deficits it runs have to be taken out of the private sector before they can be returned.

Money creation is done through government spending under our fiat system. Government spending gives us the net financial assets (in the form of bank reserves) which are the funds used by the non-government sector. The sovereign government of the United States is the ONLY source of net financial assets created through deficit spending for the non-government sector.

As a matter of accounting identity alone, if the non-government sector desires to net save in the national money of account, then the government must be in deficit, down to the last penny, which is why intergovernmental balance sheets mean squat at the end of the day. The accrued wealth in the national money of account - the US dollar - is also the accounting record of the accrued deficits, dollar for dollar, down to the last penny.

Therefore, if the government runs a surplus, the non-government sector must be in deficit. There are distributional components between the foreign and domestic percentages of the non-government sector; either way, the non-government sector's overall outcome is the the same as the government sector. If you want government surpluses or a "balanced budget", the non-government sector will go into deficit as matter of national accounting. You'll always see this reflected in the domestic private sector deficit. The non-government sector almost always tends to net save in the national money of accounts, so governments have to run deficits on a constant basis. The size and scope of the deficit being a matter of what we deem as public purpose.

I suppose you think you can make the shallow end of the pool deeper by scooping out some water out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end, too.

Yeah, there's clearly a fixed quantity of dollars or there.

There was no surplus during the Clintoon era, so the whole premise is out the window.

This is going to be fun.

 

[AmazonTania]

Gross income does not include cost basis you fucking dolt You are confusing gross income with gross revenues. Gross income is your total receipts MINUS your total expenses BEFORE taxes.
Gross income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gross Income Definition | Investopedia

For some reason you insist on defining words in a way that no one else defines them. Gross income in the case of selling real estate is the total sale price MINUS the amount paid for the house PLUS the amount that has been depreciated.

I love it when people don't read their own sources:

"Except as otherwise provided" by law, Gross income means "all income from whatever source," and is not limited to cash received.

And the law provides that cost basis is subtracted from the proceeds of a home sale. Actually the law provides you don't even have to report the sale of your primary residence unless your capital gain is in excess of $250,000. My holy fuck shit you are stupid. I sure as hell hope you don't do your own taxes, you are going to fuck yourself over big time.

That's only one example, but not really. All proceeds, unless otherwise defined, is income. Period. If you go back far enough, The Supreme Courts have ruled that income is defined as profits and gains, not salaries and wages, but that is another discussion for another time.

The cost basis are many things unrelated to the capital gain or loss of the property. And gross income doesn't include gains made on deposition of property above $250,000. So I really don't even understand how you've managed to take this discussion this far. All you've manage to do was stray far away from the initial discussion, wasted your time and still managed to end up being wrong.

That has to be some sort of special talent there...

Great. Then show me the place on my tax form where I should report the sale of my home as income.

On Form 1099-S, duh...

 

[Oddball]

Deficits are the only way for the private sector to acquire net financial assets. They add net financial assets to the private sector which provides the demand for real goods and services. This enables Americans to maintain income growth, which has allowed us to accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without running deficits. Taxation is basically a way to regulate aggregate demand at the end of the day. If aggregate demand is in the toilet, you can cut taxes to warm up a cooling economy.

What a load of central planner ignoramus crap...Gubmint has no money of its own, so the deficits it runs have to be taken out of the private sector before they can be returned.

Money creation is done through government spending under our fiat system. Government spending gives us the net financial assets (in the form of bank reserves) which are the funds used by the non-government sector. The sovereign government of the United States is the ONLY source of net financial assets created through deficit spending for the non-government sector.

As a matter of accounting identity alone, if the non-government sector desires to net save in the national money of account, then the government must be in deficit, down to the last penny, which is why intergovernmental balance sheets mean squat at the end of the day. The accrued wealth in the national money of account - the US dollar - is also the accounting record of the accrued deficits, dollar for dollar, down to the last penny.

Therefore, if the government runs a surplus, the non-government sector must be in deficit. There are distributional components between the foreign and domestic percentages of the non-government sector; either way, the non-government sector's overall outcome is the the same as the government sector. If you want government surpluses or a "balanced budget", the non-government sector will go into deficit as matter of national accounting. You'll always see this reflected in the domestic private sector deficit. The non-government sector almost always tends to net save in the national money of accounts, so governments have to run deficits on a constant basis. The size and scope of the deficit being a matter of what we deem as public purpose.

So you either take money straight out of the private sector, or devalue the currency and ruin the people's purchasing power...Either way you're breaking someone's leg, then handing them a crutch and condescendingly preaching to them about how lucky they are to have central planner know-it-alls like you to "help" them.

See: Broken windows.

I suppose you think you can make the shallow end of the pool deeper by scooping out some water out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end, too.

Yeah, there's clearly a fixed quantity of dollars or there.

Irrelevant to the overall concept....There's no free lunch.

 

[Kimura]

So you either take money straight out of the private sector, or devalue the currency and ruin people's purchasing power...Either way you're breaking someones' leg, then handing them a crutch and condescendingly preaching to them about how lucky they are to have central planner know-it-alls like you to "help" them.

No, that's not what I said. The government is the only entity that creates net financial assets through deficit spending. This is the only way for the private sector to obtain financial assets so to speak. Those dollars we all carry around in our pockets are assets for the public. Who's talking about a free lunch? Or devaluation?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I love it when people don't read their own sources:

"Except as otherwise provided" by law, Gross income means "all income from whatever source," and is not limited to cash received.

And the law provides that cost basis is subtracted from the proceeds of a home sale. Actually the law provides you don't even have to report the sale of your primary residence unless your capital gain is in excess of $250,000. My holy fuck shit you are stupid. I sure as hell hope you don't do your own taxes, you are going to fuck yourself over big time.

That's only one example, but not really. All proceeds, unless otherwise defined, is income. Period.

There's no law that actually says that.

The cost basis are many things unrelated to the capital gain or loss of the property.

Now cost basis is unrelated to the capital gain or loss? My fuck you're a total moron.

And gross income doesn't include gains made on deposition of property above $250,000. So I really don't even understand how you've managed to take this discussion this far.

You're the one stupidly claiming that the proceeds from a home sale counts as gross income. You are the absolute dumbest person I have ever met. By your utterly stupid comprehension of the tax code, if I bought a home and sold it the next day, I'd be liable for income tax on the entire sales price PLUS a capital gains tax on any profit I made. Jesus Christ you can't really be this stupid, can you?

Great. Then show me the place on my tax form where I should report the sale of my home as income.

On Form 1099-S, duh...

[/quote]

I asked where I should report it as INCOME. There is no place on the 1099-S where INCOME is reported nor do the instructions mention that any box of 1099-S should be entered into 1040. Which LINE of 1040 would this supposed INCOME show up on?

 

[Oddball]

So you either take money straight out of the private sector, or devalue the currency and ruin people's purchasing power...Either way you're breaking someones' leg, then handing them a crutch and condescendingly preaching to them about how lucky they are to have central planner know-it-alls like you to "help" them.

No, that's not what I said. The government is the only entity that creates net financial assets through deficit spending. This is the only way for the private sector to obtain financial assets so to speak. Those dollars we all carry around in our pockets are assets for the public. Who's talking about a free lunch? Or devaluation?

Actually, it is what you said...You just don't want to admit it.

Gubmint produces not one single thing that others would willingly want to buy, so the notion that it can create "net financial assets" is absurd on its face.

But I'm sure your Keynesian voodoo econ prof gave you an A for regurgitating that free-luncher bunk.

 

[AmazonTania]

And the law provides that cost basis is subtracted from the proceeds of a home sale. Actually the law provides you don't even have to report the sale of your primary residence unless your capital gain is in excess of $250,000. My holy fuck shit you are stupid. I sure as hell hope you don't do your own taxes, you are going to fuck yourself over big time.

That's only one example, but not really. All proceeds, unless otherwise defined, is income. Period.

There's no law that actually says that.

Unless otherwise outlined, gross income is from whatever source derived which is not limited to cash received (or anything else as the real law actually states). It's on the source you provided, now you'd like to claim that it doesn't say it. Hm, okay...

Now cost basis is unrelated to the capital gain or loss? My fuck you're a total moron.

That's not what I said. I said they are many things unrelated to gains and losses. There is construction, there are taxes, etc.

Try addressing what I am saying for a change. You might actually do better getting your points across, whatever those points are.

I asked where I should report it as INCOME. There is no place on the 1099-S where INCOME is reported nor do the instructions mention that any box of 1099-S should be entered into 1040. Which LINE of 1040 would this supposed INCOME show up on?

All proceeds are funds which has been received. In this case, it refers to the total of money from a sale and anything along the lines as cash received is Income, unless otherwise outlined.

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and explain this to you in basic algebra:

4x = 8

x = 3 -1

What is x?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether or not you wish to use absolute terms such as 'income' or 'gains' is irreverent. Proceeds are income. You are obligated to report the proceeds you have made in your 1099-S. Plain and Simple.

 

[Kimura]

So you either take money straight out of the private sector, or devalue the currency and ruin people's purchasing power...Either way you're breaking someones' leg, then handing them a crutch and condescendingly preaching to them about how lucky they are to have central planner know-it-alls like you to "help" them.

No, that's not what I said. The government is the only entity that creates net financial assets through deficit spending. This is the only way for the private sector to obtain financial assets so to speak. Those dollars we all carry around in our pockets are assets for the public. Who's talking about a free lunch? Or devaluation?

Actually, it is what you said...You just don't want to admit it.

Gubmint produces not one single thing that others would willingly want to buy, so the notion that it can create "net financial assets" is absurd on its face.

But I'm sure your Keynesian voodoo econ prof gave you an A for regurgitating that free-luncher bunk.

Are dollars assets to public? Yes or no? Is the government the monopoly issuer of the dollar? Yes or no? The government issues the national unit of account. Federal liabilities, whether as currency or bonds, are assets to the public. The private sector isn’t an issuer of currency, sorry.

Re: Broken window. The real fallacy is confusing a broken window for actual capital.

Secondly, I'm not a "Keynesian", although that seems to be a favorite in this thread.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's only one example, but not really. All proceeds, unless otherwise defined, is income. Period.

There's no law that actually says that.

Unless otherwise provided, gross income is from whatever source derived which is not limited to cash received (or anything else as the real law actually states). It's on the source you provided, now you'd like to claim that it doesn't say it. Hm, okay...

Right. Unless otherwise provided. You keep missing that part. When you sell your home you don't even have to report it unless

Reporting the Sale

Do not report the sale of your main home on your tax return unless:
You have a gain and do not qualify to exclude all of it,
You have a gain and choose not to exclude it, or
You have a loss and received a Form 1099-S.

Sale of Residence - Real Estate Tax Tips

How the fuck is the IRS going to include the sale of your home in your gross income if you don't even have to report it ? LOL!


The income from sale of depreciated rental property is sale price - purchase + depreciation. sale price - purchase price is taxed as a capital gain and the depreciation is taxed as depreciation recapture.

All proceeds are cash which has been received. In this case, it refers to the amount received from the total of money from a sale and anything along the lines as cash received is Income, unless otherwise outlined.

Great. What LINE of the 1040 does it wind up on?

If I buy a house today for 200k and sell it tomorrow for 300k, is it your honest understanding of the tax code that I now owe income tax on the 300k PLUS capital gains tax on 100k? Is that really what you think?


Do you really think businesses compute their incomes by adding up all their revenues and NOT subtracting their costs? Is that your honest understanding of how basic book keeping works?


Didn't you say you did something in finance ?!?!