Hulk Hogan Death Hoax
In August 2014, Facebook users begin seeing posts that featured what looked to be an image from a video of pro wrestler Hulk Hogan bloody and prone, with text indicating that "Hulk Hogan died after having a deadly head shot today as revenge": Is this true? R.I.P Hulk Hogan died after having a deadly head shot today as revenge  However, no matter how often this hoax is recirculated on social media, Hulk Hogan remains alive, and no such bloody video of him exists to be seen. As of 20 November 2017, Hogan was still well enough to be commenting on that day's destruction of the Georgia Dome: Georgia Dome The first time the Georgia Dome exploded was Hollywood Hogan vs @goldberg. Now they had to implode it. They should have just called me and Bill again brother. HH pic.twitter.com/A9n3hr18Jl @goldberg pic.twitter.com/A9n3hr18Jl  Hulk Hogan (@HulkHogan) November 20, 2017 November 20, 2017  (The bloodied photo of Hulk Hogan actually came from a 2009 promotional 'incident' in Australia when Hogan was 'attacked' by fellow wrestler Ric Flair.)   incident Users who did click through on such links were taken to a faux Facebook page which eventually led them down the trail of the usual survey scam, directing them to "like" or "share" links with their Facebook friends and complete online surveys, all with the goal of getting them to enrich scammers by disclosing sensitive personal information, spreading malware, buying products, and signing up for costly, difficult-to-cancel services. survey scam
On 18 September 2016, the "Donald Trump for President" Facebook page posted a photograph of Hillary Clinton along with the claim that the Democratic presidential nominee had spent over $1 billion on negative attack ads targeting Trump, but she had spent no money at all on political ads touting her own political record and accomplishments:  The image asks viewers to "share if you agree," but its claims are not up for debate. They are false.  First, the Hillary Clinton campaign has not spent "over $1 billion on negative Trump ads on TV." Although Clinton has run a number of negative TV spots attacking her rival, she has not spent anywhere near $1 billion on such ads. Shortly after this image was published in September 2016, NBC partner Advertising Analytics released a report detailing how much money each of the candidates had spent on ads. They recorded that Clinton's campaign spent about $90 million on ads during the general election (up to 20 September 2016), while pro-Clinton groups had spent an additional $60 million or so: report Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to dominate Donald Trump and pro-Trump outside groups in the 2016 advertising race. According to ad-spending data from NBC partner Advertising Analytics, Clinton's campaign has spent $96.4 million in ads in the general election, versus $17.3 million for Trump's campaign. That's more than a 5-to-1 advantage for Clinton. And then when you factor in outside groups, it's $156.6 million for Team Clinton, and $33.6 million for Team Trump. That's almost a 5-to-1 advantage. It's also false to say that Clinton has never released a political ad touting her own accomplishments. The Clinton campaign has issued a number of videos touting her accomplishments from her 30-plus years of public service, including one that highlighted her work with children and health care and another featuring President Obama talking about Clinton's many achievements (including becoming the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party).  children and health care achievements Even if we assume the original image referred only to paid television advertising, it's still wrong in light of examples such as a June 2016 Clinton TV spot that showcased several highlights of her political career: A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen.  In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme  one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not  were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie.  "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?"   San Francisco Chronicle.  27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright.  "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings."   Just Security.  December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron.  "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained."   Vox.  12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew.  "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved."   OpenSecrets.org.  3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie.  "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?"   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  22 August 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga."   4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels."   Vox.  4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett.  "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000."   The Hill.  4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill.  "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation."   USA Today.  14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop.  "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes."   Vox.  21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews.  "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained."   Vox.  27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan.  "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release."   The Hill.  28 February 2019. Reuters.  "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels."   5 April 2018. We now accept as commonplace the notion that actors in popular television shows are set for life financially, as we read about how cast members in hit shows such as "Friends," "Seinfeld," and "The Big Bang Theory" not only were paid upwards of $1 million per episode during those series' initial runs, but then earned millions of dollars more in residuals and royalties from syndication deals, DVD sales, and video streaming. $1 million earned That wasn't always the case, however. The actors from television shows of decades past  shows whose episodes have been continuously rerun countless thousands of times all over the world and are touchstones of popular culture  did not reap any such bounty. Those cast members were typically paid salaries that ranged from modest to pretty good, and they may have received additional payments for the first few airings of episodes in which they appeared, but that was it  they collected little or no residuals when their shows were sold into syndication, and no royalties from a home video market that didn't yet exist. As Eve Plumb, who portrayed Jan Brady on the 1970s sitcom "The Brady Bunch," revealed in 2011: The biggest misconception is that were all rich from it, but we are not. We have not been paid for reruns of the show for many, many years. We are not making money off of it at all. Eve Plumb The one notable exception to this circumstance, according to legend, is actress Dawn Wells, who played the character of Mary Ann Summers in the 1960s sitcom "Gilligan's Island." Numerous websites such as Mental Floss have offered versions of the following tale about how Wells supposedly parlayed her three seasons on the show into a lifetime of paychecks: versions Wells was married to talent agent Larry Rosen when she was hired for the Gilligan cast, and it was Rosen who noted the clause in her contract (which was standard at the time) that limited her to collecting residuals only the first five times any episode re-ran after its original airing. Rosen told Wells that if the series was a success, this clause could cost her a lot of money. Wells was the only castaway who asked for an amendment to that residual clause in her contract, and the producers granted it, never thinking the series would be on the air 40 years later. As a result, [producer] Sherwood Schwartz and Dawn Wells are the only two folks connected with the show who still receive money from it. This narrative seems quite improbable on its face. Actors are generally represented by a bevy of various unions, guilds, agents, and lawyers, and the idea that only one person in the whole television industry possessed the savvy to recognize that a contractual entitlement to residuals was a potentially lucrative reward worth pursuing strains credulity. Moreover, the goal of most television producers in that era was to keep their shows going long enough (generally three years) to amass a sufficient number of episodes for syndication deals after those series ended their original network runs, as the syndication market provided the bulk of potential profits. While producers may not have expected their shows to still be airing "40 years later," they certainly hoped their series would enjoy long TV afterlives, and they would not be keen on sharing those revenues with actors who had little bargaining power (nor would they want to set a precedent for other actors to follow). A minor actor in a secondary role who dared to press for a contractual guarantee to perpetual royalties likely would have been curtly informed how quickly and easily she could be replaced.  We don't need to speculate on the state of 1960s television to know the answer here, though, because Wells herself has repeatedly stated that this legend is false. In 2014, for example, Wells said during an interview that she was paid a salary roughly equivalent to $50,000 in today's dollars and "never received any residuals": interview Q: They stopped making Gilligans Island 47 years ago. Do you still receive residuals? A: We never received any residuals. Q: How much money did you make for Gilligans Island? A: Nothing. I dont know, maybe I made $700 a week. I understand (the producer) Mr. Schwartz made $90 million on the reruns alone. I think we got paid ... maybe we made $50,000, I dont know. And in a 2016 interview, she answered the question, "Whats one big myth about [Gilligan's Island]?" by asserting that the actors "didn't really get a dime" in residuals: A misconception is that we must be wealthy, rolling in the dough, because we got residuals. We didnt really get a dime. I think my salary -- of course, I was low on the totem pole, Ginger [Tina Louise] and Thurston [Jim Backus] got more -- was $750 a week. Sherwood Schwartz, our producer, reportedly made $90 million on the reruns alone! A 2014 Washington Post obituary of Wells' cast mate Russell Johnson, who played the Professor, also observed that Johnson "resented ... that he and other cast members were left out of the bulk of the syndication profits." obituary For what it's worth, the daughter of "Gilligan's Island" creator Sherwood Schwartz disputed the oft-repeated claim that her father realized as much as $90 million from the series: disputed Schwartzs daughter Hope Juber dismissed that estimate as an urban myth. While he, and my family were certainly comfortable, that kind of wild estimate is ridiculous and surprising, she wrote in an email. She said her father made his own deal with the studio just like the cast members, but not for that kind of money. She added, If there is $90 million, it must be buried in a chest on the island somewhere because weve never seen it. Mackie, John.  "Full Interview With: Mary Ann on Gilligans Island."
  Vancouver Sun.  22 January 2014. Bernstein, Adam.  "Russell Johnson, Actor Who Played the Professor on Gilligans Island, Dies at 89."
  The Washington Post.  16 January 2019. Malito, Alessandra.  "Why We Keep Hearing About Once-Famous TV Actors in Financial Trouble."
  MarketWatch.  10 September 2018. Kovalchik, Kara.  "TV-Holic: Still on Gilligans Island."
  Mental Floss.  8 September 2010. OK!.  "Eve Plumb Not Paid for 'Brady Bunch' Reruns."
  3 February 2011. Goldberg, Lesley.  "Why the 'Big Bang Theory' Stars Took Surprising Pay Cuts."
  The Hollywood Reporter.  29 March 2017. Clash, Jim.  "Interview: Actress Dawn Wells Answers the Big Ginger/Mary Ann Question, More."
  Forbes.  18 March 2016. New Jersey doesnt just need a lot of federal aid to rebuild a coastline ravaged by Hurricane Sandy, the state also deserves it, according to Gov. Chris Christie.NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams asked Christie recently if its fair for people who have no interests in the Jersey Shore to ask, Why the money? Why the effort, if this is the new normal?Well, listen, it's fair to ask it but I have the answer, Christie said during the Oct. 30 interview. The answer is that for New Jersey, which gives so much to this country -- by the way, 50th in return of our federal tax dollars. So New Jerseyans send more than any other state in America in federal taxes, getting back less. When that's done and you see that our state is a state that needs this to contribute to our economy and also to the soul and the vibrancy of our state, I think we have very good answers and arguments to make. And you count on one thing: you're looking at the guy who is going to make those arguments.With Christie building part of his case for federal assistance around the states return on federal tax dollars, PolitiFact New Jersey wondered whether his premise is true.Add Donor State to the list of New Jerseys monikers.Depending on the year -- and whether adjustments are made to federal data -- New Jersey ranks at or near the bottom nationwide in this category.The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group, tracked how much the federal government collected through taxes and returned through expenditures to states every year from 1981 to 2005.The Washington, D.C.-based foundation calculated the federal tax burden -- a measurement meant to account for taxes that are assessed in one state, but impact taxpayers elsewhere -- to conduct its analysis.In 17 of those 25 years, New Jersey came in last place, receiving 70 cents or less for every dollar it sent to the federal government.In 2005 -- the most recent year analyzed by the Tax Foundation -- the federal government gave New Jersey 61 cents for every dollar it took. That was the smallest return of any state.But that was seven years ago. Though the Tax Foundation hasnt updated its findings, other studies show New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.The Northeast-Midwest Institute, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes 18 states in the region, released a May 2011 report on federal spending and taxation patterns that focused on New Jersey.New Jersey ranked 48th in the nation. Only Minnesota and Delaware received smaller returns on their federal tax dollars in 2009, according to the report, which relied on raw, unadjusted data.PolitiFact New Jerseys analysis of federal data from 2010 also put New Jersey in 48th place. So even the raw data put New Jersey near the bottom in this category.But Colleen Cain, a senior policy analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute who prepared the 2011 report, said in an e-mail, that the news behind this is not all bad.In the report, Cain attributes the low ranking to New Jerseys relatively high income levels and greater-than-average business income tax contribution, coupled with a relatively low need for federal aid.It does, however, underscore the importance of states like New Jersey in supporting the fiscal health of the nation generally.Our rulingChristie said that New Jersey is 50th in return of our federal tax dollars.The Tax Foundations analysis of 2005 data, which was adjusted to reflect each states overall federal tax burden, ranked New Jersey 50th in the nation in this category.The state received 61 cents for every dollar it sent to Washington, D.C. that year.Though that research is outdated, more recent analysis of raw data shows New Jersey still ranks near the bottom.On the Truth-O-Meter, Christies statement registers as Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. Alex Trebek's net worth became the subject of strange online advertisements in the weeks following his death. The husband, father, and "Jeopardy" game show host died on Nov. 8, 2020, following a battle with advanced pancreatic cancer. death The ad in question read: "Alex Trebek's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." This was false.  Misleading, baseless, and false.  The ads were sponsored by LifeExact, The Financial Mag, Travel Patriot, and perhaps others, and were routed through Zemanta, which is owned by Outbrain. Crunchbase defined Outbrain as "a content discovery platform providing publishers a service for recommended links to increase traffic and generate revenue." Outbrain (via Zemanta) provided the technology that allowed the Trebek ads to appear, while LifeExact, The Financial Mag, and Travel Patriot hosted the landing pages. The landing pages featured an image slideshow, with one celebrity name and net worth figure per page. The slideshow story was headlined as: "52 Celebrities & Their Huge Net Worth  Chadwick Boseman's Net Worth Left Us in Disbelief." defined The "net worth left family in tears" advertising lure has also been used by advertising networks exploiting the names of Kenny Rogers, Sean Connery, and Pat Sajak. However, Sajak is still alive, and as of this writing is on the first page of the "52 Celebrities" slideshow. Kenny Rogers Sean Connery first page While the headline claimed the story was about 52 celebrities, including Chadwick Boseman, who died on Aug. 28, 2020, Boseman did not show up until after 140 clicks, on slide 140. Trebek appeared after 141 clicks, on slide 141. His page was the end of the slideshow. Trebek's page did not appear to acknowledge his cancer or passing. The page, which claimed his net worth was $50 million, was likely created in the past, and may have been moved along with Boseman's page to the end of the 141-page slideshow after their deaths. slide 140 slide 141 page The one-item-per-click slideshow model is known in the online advertising world as "arbitrage." On the business and technology blog Margins, run by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, Roy defined arbitrage as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins In arbitrage, the advertising network's goal is to make more money on the ads displayed to readers who click through the slideshow than it costs to advertise the false "net worth left his family in tears" claim that lured them to it. As the family grieved Trebek's passing, on Nov. 11, his wife, Jean, shared a heartfelt message with a photograph from their wedding day. She posted to Instagram: posted My family and I sincerely thank you all for your compassionate messages and generosity. Your expressions have truly touched our hearts. Thank you so very, very much. Many Blessings to all,Jean Trebek In sum, the ads claiming that Alex Trebek's net worth "left his family in tears" were misleading and false. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Claim:  A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions.  OF AND  INFORMATION:    Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales.  Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry & Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will be a $15,200 tax. Remember Obamas battle cry  take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day  the day they sell their house and buy a new one.   Origins:  One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872 The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions.  This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households.  Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount.  As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: response In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners"  if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit.  Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale).   The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude  a)  The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level.  b)  The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure  would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion).   The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900.  (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount.   In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. median Additional information:      The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples  The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated:  15 March 2012    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay."   CNNMoney.com.  25 March 2010. A tax on feminine hygiene products (also known as a "tampon tax")was notnew by the time social media interest in the topic appeared inMay 2016, but ascreenshot published by the page "Women's Rights News" contributed the buzz: screenshot    The image originated with a 15 January 2016 interview between YouTube personality Ingrid Nilsen and President Barack Obama. The "I don't know anyone who has a period who thinks it's a luxury" comment was made by Nilsen, not the President: interview   The topic was already steadily popular.NYMag.compublished an article on 29 April 2016thatexplored social media interest in the tampon tax: article Pads and tampons have made political headlines in every single month of this year. In January, lawmakers in California, Utah, Virginia, and Michigan introduced anti-tampon-tax bills. They were mostly sponsored by women (shout out to Delegate Mark Keam in Virginia, though!). Notably, in each of those states, except California, the mostly Democratic sponsors are vastly outnumbered in their Republican-heavy legislatures. Also in January, the tampon tax made headlines when Obama learned about it while the camera was rolling, and declared he thought the tax was unfair. Then, in February, similar bills were introduced in Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York. In March, the city of Chicago dropped its tampon tax, and a class-action lawsuit brought by women in Ohio and New York state added pressure to stop taxing periods. In April, the New York Senate unanimously passed the tampon tax bill. This is an astounding amount of national legislative momentum for an issue that was long considered to be womens private, shameful burden. Its no coincidence that efforts to end the tampon tax have cropped up alongside viral art projects, new businesses, and digital campaigns to destigmatize menstruation. The tampon tax is the perfect of-the-moment issue for lawmakers who want to signal their support for women  and take a stance on inequality. Ending the tax, which promises practical benefits for low-income women, is low-hanging fruit for legislators in liberal states. A widely circulated June 2015 map created byFusion illustrated the tampon tax with color coding. Most statestaxed feminine hygiene products, excepta few that had either specific exemptions orno sales tax at all: map   Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland specifically did not tax[PDF] feminine hygiene products. Alaska, Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire, and Delaware do not have sales tax on any items (including tampons). The rest ofthe states maintained atax on such products.One outlier was the state of New York, which moved in April 2016 to abolish the tax: tax moved The Republican-led Senate on Monday unanimously passed a bill exempting feminine hygiene products from sales tax, two months after the debate over the so-called tampon tax reached Albany. The bill, sponsored by freshman Sen. Sue Serino, a Republican from Hyde Park, passed with 58 votes. The vote on the Senate floor took about one minute, just enough time for at least one period joke. It is a way of providing some tax relief to women everywhere, young girls in particular, Sen. Diane Savino said, thanking the bill sponsor. But on behalf of women of a certain age everywhere, I would love to offer a friendly amendment and ask for a rebate program, Senator Serino. But I know it would probably bankrupt the state.   Lawmakers in Michigan expressed interest in advancing a similar initiative, and the city of Chicago (but not the state of Illinois) axed the tax. On 12 April 2016, MarketWatch reported somemomentum both in and outside the U.S. to end the additional charges: Michigan Chicago reported The issue has made it onto the agenda in about 10 states, seven of which introduced the legislation, including New York (though Utahs never made it out of committee) and three, South Carolina, Tennessee and Illinois, that recently debated it. It has also gone international, with France cutting the sales tax in late 2015 and the European Union taking a stance on the issue this year. In May 2016, the majority of the 40 states with a tampon tax retained it (although New York was on its way to tax-free status for feminine hygiene products). By and large, social media tampon tax claims were accurate. To be clear, tampons weren't taxed at a special or higher rate than other taxable items  they simply were subject to sales tax in general.  Coughlin, Sarah.  "Chicago Removes Its Tampon Tax & The State Of New York Is On Its Way To Doing The Same."
Refinery29.  13 April 2016. Court, Emma.  "New York Is The Latest State To Scrap Tampon Tax."
MarketWatch.  12 April 2016. Friedman, Ann.  "How Ending The Tampon Tax Became Viral Legislation."
NYMag The Cut.  29 April 2016. Hillin, Taryn.  "These Are The U.S. States That Tax Women For Having Periods."
Fusion.  3 June 2015. Larimer, Sarah.  "The 'Tampon tax,' Explained."
Washington Post.  8 January 2016. Miller, Faith.  "Why Two Senators Want To Get Rid Of Michigan's 'Tampon Tax.'"
WILX.  14 April 2016. Velasquez, Josefa.  "Senate Unanimously Passes Bill Eliminating 'Tampon Tax.'"
Politico New York.  11 April 2016. Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here In June 2020, several social media users copy-pasted a piece of text across social media that claimed the Rev. Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at the funeral of George Floyd, the Black man whose death while in police custody sparked nationwide protests against police brutality and racial injustice. social media     Verbatim or near-verbatim copies of this message  "Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at George Floyd's funeral"  have been shared by dozens of users on Facebook and Twitter. The earliest posting of this message that we could find was shared on June 13, a few days after Floyd's funeral service, by Brian Benedetto. That post had been shared more than 69,000 times:   However, none of the posts that we examined offered any evidence to support the claim. These posts weren't accompanied by links to news articles, quotes, TV interviews, financial records, or any other evidence to prove this accusation. It seems that this claim was simply conjured up out of thin air.  This type of post, a piece of text overlaid on a bright background, is frequently used to share unfounded claims, which are repeated over and over until some people become convinced that they are true.  Poynter wrote in 2019: Poynter When Facebook started letting users post text on top of colored backgrounds in 2016, it seemed like a fairly benign way to get people to share more personal thoughts on the platform. [...] But since then, like other formats on Facebook, the text post feature has been weaponized into an effective way to spread misinformation on the platform. Over the past few weeks, some of the most viral hoaxes on Facebook have spread in the form of text posts. They make salacious political claims without linking to any website or attaching a photo or video. They often come from regular Facebook users instead of Pages or Groups. There is no evidence to support the claim that Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at Floyd's funeral. This claim did not originate with a credible source and is not supported by any available evidence. However, we can't definitively say that Sharpton was not paid for this speaking engagement. We reached out to Sharpton and The Fountain of Praise Church in Houston for more information and will update this story if we hear back.  A video of Sharpton's eulogy can be viewed below: eulogy    Funke, Daniel.  "Forget Fake News Stories. False Text Posts Are Getting Massive Engagement on Facebook."
  Poynter.  6 March 2019. Emmrich, Stuart.  "The Most Moving Moment of Al Sharptons Eulogy for George Floyd."
  Vogue. 2 June 2020. CBS Minnesota.  "Al Sharpton To Deliver Eulogy At George Floyd Memorial Service."   2 June 2020. Claim:  Caroline Kennedy said that she can't stand President Obama's voice and that he's a liar. UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Just saw on Facebook a photo of Caroline Kennedy quoting that she just can't stand to listen to President Obama's voice and that he is a liar. True?    Origins:  The quote attributed to Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President John F. Kennedy) referenced above originated with Edward Klein's 2012 book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.  It appeared in the following passage, which talked about Caroline Kennedy  who had been a strong supporter of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign  becoming disenchanted with the Obamas for making "catty" remarks about her family and for not being more liberal in political policy-making:  "Through these [spies that the Kennedy family has in the Obama administration] and other people, Caroline heard back that there was a lot of nasty shit being said about the Kennedys by the president and Michelle," [a] family member [said]. "There were catty remarks about how badly the Kennedy women dressed, and how their houses were shabby and threadbare. Caroline got the impression that most of this negativity was coming from Michelle, who didn't want the Kennedys to be part of the administration for fear that they would have too much influence over the president." "Gradually, Caroline began to change her tune and side with Bobby and Kathleen [Kennedy Townsend] against the Obamas. Unlike Jackie, who was completely apolitical, Caroline is a liberal with a capital L. When Obama didn't raise taxes to balance the  budget, Caroline marked him down. In her eyes, he's a mess because he doesn't follow the liberal bible on politics. More important, Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn't give a damn about her support.  For instance, she was not invited to the state dinners at the White House hosted by the Obamas, or to the president's forty-ninth birth celebration in Chicago. "It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle [Obama] and Jackie [Kennedy]. Caroline had a word for such comparisons; she called them 'odious.' She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn. Now she says things about Obama like, 'I can't stand to hear his voice any more. He's a liar and worse.'" However verifying exactly what Caroline Kennedy might have said is difficult because the quote offered in this passage is second-hand rather than direct (i.e., it's someone else talking about what she said, not a direct statement from Caroline Kennedy herself) and because the source of the statement is anonymous (beyond the description of his or her being a "member of the Kennedy clan"). Caroline Kennedy herself has neither confirmed nor denied that she made the remarks attributed to her, but even after their publication she has continued to publicly express support for the Obamas, such as issuing a message to wish President Obama a Happy Father's Day, campaigning in New Hampshire for the President's re-election, and making plans to attend the Democratic National Convention. message campaigning attend Last updated:  19 August 2012 Both sides have launched attack ads in the race for Georgias 6th Congressional District. Recently, Democrats accused Republican Karen Handel of wallowing in administrative bloat. (We rated thatMostly False). Now, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul Ryan,has an adthat paints Democrat Jon Ossoff as beholden more to people in California than voters in Georgia. It is running in the Atlanta area as part of the super PACs $6.7 million independent expenditure. Shot against iconic backdrops of San Francisco, actors, each one the most stereotypical of left coast stereotypes, speak cheerfully about Ossoff. A young woman with a floppy hat and a big Cut the military now button says, Theres a reason Bay Area liberals have contributed more to Jon Ossoffs campaign than people in Georgia. Hes one of us. Another young woman stands in front of the Golden Gate Bridge and says San Francisco hearts Ossoff. With a coy toss of her ponytails, she makes a heart with her hands and presses them to her chest. Set aside the political snark and you have this factual claim: San Francisco Bay Area liberals have given more to Jon Ossoff's campaign than people in Georgia. Is it so? The Congressional Leadership Fund said they got their information from theMercury News, a prominent local paper. AnApril 12article said, Ossoff reported 2,628 individual donations from people living in the nine Bay Area counties, significantly more than from all of Georgia  although of a smaller total value. Heres how the numbers shook out at the end of March when the data behind the article was collected. (The dollar total for Bay Area residents wasnt in the article. We calculated it based on the same data.) State Number of donors Dollars (through March 31, 2017) Georgia 1,578 $600,141 California 5,822 $547,857 Bay Area 2,628 $290,229 (PolitiFact calculation) So first off, the article doesnt back up what the ad said, that people in the Bay Area gave more to Ossoff than people in Georgia. In fact, as the original article noted, Georgians gave more money to Ossoff than people from California. As for people in the Bay Area, we found that they gave half as much compared to voters in Georgia. (More people from the Bay Area contributed than from Georgia, but thats not what the ad claimed.) Of course, its also important to note that the ad relies on information that is now nearly two months old. In truth, theres only so much more to learn. The last public report was on April 16. With help from staff at the Center for Responsive Politics, we updated the totals. Georgia remained in the lead, by about $640,000 compared to about $321,000 from the Bay area. Its also worth noting that donations under $200 are not required to be itemized under Federal Election Commission rules, meaning we dont know where those donors live. That accounts for about two-thirds of Ossoffs donations through the end of March. The Conservative Leadership Fund is running an ad that says Bay Area liberals have given more to Jon Ossoff's campaign than people in Georgia. In fact, based on data available through mid April, people in Georgia have given Ossoff twice as much money as people in the Bay Area. The one trace of accuracy is that Bay Area donors outnumber Ossoffs Georgia donors, but the ad failed to describe the donations in those terms. We rate this claim False.