Home Sales Tax
Claim:  A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions. 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.
internet users iterations following quote For attractive lips, speak words of kindness. For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people. For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. For beautiful hair, let a child run his or her fingers through it once a day. For poise, walk with the knowledge that you never walk alone. People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, youll find one at the end of each of your arms. As you grow older, you will discover that you have two hands, one for helping yourself, the other for helping others. The beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure she carries, or the way she combs her hair. The beauty of a woman must be seen from in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart, the place where love resides. The beauty of a woman is not in a facial mode, but the true beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It is the caring that she lovingly gives and the passion that she shows. The beauty of a woman grows with the passing years.  Image via Pinterest.  Proving that even the famous go in for glurge, Hepburn, who died in 1993, was not the original author of the quoted list of beauty tips. However, she considered the quote one of her favorites and quoted it in public a number of times. Its true author was humorist Sam Levenson (who said, "Insanity is hereditary: You can get it from your children"). glurge However this confusion started over who wrote the piece, it's clear Hepburn never had a hand in any of it beyond repeating a favorite essay in public, always carefully crediting its author. That some have now come to think of this as "her" list is a regrettable misattribution. Biographies of Hepburn maintain that, as a 13-year-old, she did indeed serve as a courier and occasional secret messenger for the Resistance in World Word II (like many other children in Holland), carrying messages and illegal leaflets stuffed into her socks and shoes. Biographies In addition to her fabled acting career, which included the 1953 Best Actress Oscar for "Roman Holiday," Hepburn was a long-time activist for charitable causes and, in 1988, was named the official spokesperson for the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Roman Holiday United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund When asked in January 1992 if she had any personal beauty secrets besides Levenson's philosophical tips, she said, "If I had them, I'd make a fortune. But I know what helps  health, lots of sleep, lots of fresh air, and a lot of help from Estee Lauder." Donnally, Trish.  "This Beauty Shares Her Tips."The San Francisco Chronicle.  27 January 1992  (p. D5). This article was updated to meet Snopes' current standards for article formatting and include recent examples of the claim. In late January 2022, Google users looked to Reddit and elsewhere to find out if an email for the status of the Equifax data breach settlement was a "scam or legit," as readers often do after receiving such notices. The email had the subject line, "Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code)," and linked to the website, experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. It promised a free four-year membership for the credit monitoring service Experian IdentityWorks. Google Reddit experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement This was a legitimate notice for a data breach settlement for Equifax. Readers might remember making a claim in the settlement back in July 2019. Users who opted to receive credit monitoring instead of a check were sent activation codes in the new email for Experian IdentityWorks. The official website for the settlement was equifaxbreachsettlement.com. back in July 2019 equifaxbreachsettlement.com The official settlement website documented the fact that in September 2017, Equifax was "the victim of a criminal cyberattack," giving the attackers "unauthorized access to the personal information of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers." This included "peoples names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some instances drivers license numbers, credit card numbers, or other personal information." documented Equifax Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of consumers whose personal information was impacted as a result of the Data Breach. Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is overseeing these lawsuits. These lawsuits are known as In re: Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-2800-TWT. The consumers who sued are called the Plaintiffs. Equifax, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries are the Defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that Equifax did not adequately protect consumers personal information and that Equifax delayed in providing notice of the data breach. The most recent version of the lawsuit, which describes the specific legal claims alleged by the Plaintiffs, is available here. Equifax denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other judicial entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing. here In the end, both sides of the legal battle "agreed to a settlement after a lengthy mediation process overseen by a retired federal judge." That settlement allowed claimants to choose to receive a check or credit monitoring. Anyone who chose to receive a check might eventually receive an amount much smaller than expected, as the "alternative compensation of up to $125" would "likely will be substantially lowered" to a "small percentage" of what was expected.  In 2017, the Equifax website provided steps for consumers to take following a security breach at the company. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  The email that began to be sent in late January 2022 provided a status update on the Equifax data breach settlement. According to a copy of the email that we reviewed, it read as follows: Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code) Issue Date: January 31, 2022 Claim No. (removed)Dear (removed): You filed a claim in the Equifax Data Breach Settlement and chose to receive free, three-bureau (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) credit monitoring from Experian for four years. Implementation of the Settlement was delayed by appeals; however, the Settlement is now effective because appellate courts have affirmed it. This email provides additional information about the services provided by Experian as part of the Settlement and how you can enroll. You are receiving free membership in Experian IdentityWorks for four years. You must enroll by June 27, 2022. This service is free for you and provided as a Settlement benefit. You do not need to provide any payment information to enroll and you do not need to cancel the service when it ends. We encourage you to enroll today. HOW TO ENROLL:  Visit the Experian IdentityWorks Website: www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement Enter Your Activation Code: (removed) www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement You must use the above code to enroll by June 27, 2022 (your activation code will not work after this date). If you have questions, need help with Identity Restoration (either because you were a victim of fraud or identity theft) because of the Equifax data breach, or would like another way to sign up for Experian IdentityWorks, please call Experians customer care team toll-free at 1-877-251-5822. So that the team may better serve you, please be prepared to provide them with engagement number (removed) so that you may access the Settlements Identity Restoration services for assistance with fraud or identity theft. For more information on Identity Restoration services, visit www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement The email also broke down exactly what is included in the four-year membership to the credit monitoring service known as Experian IdentityWorks: Experian IdentityWorks - Daily Credit Monitoring* from each of the three nationwide Consumer Reporting Agencies showing key changes to your Consumer Reports;- Automated alerts when new accounts are opened; inquiries or requests for credit reports are made for the purpose of determining credit; changes to address; and negative information (including delinquencies or bankruptcies);- On-demand online access to a copy of your Experian Consumer Report, updated monthly;- Automated non-credit alerts, using public or proprietary data sources, for example: when certain information is found on a suspicious website or the dark web; when names, aliases, and addresses have been associated with your Social Security Number; when a payday loan or unsecured credit has been taken or opened using your Social Security Number; when your information matches information in arrest or criminal court records; when your information is used for identity authentication; when your mail has been redirected through the U.S. Postal Service; when banking activity is detected related to new deposit account applications, changes to personal information, and new signers are added to accounts; and when a balance is reported on your credit line that has been inactive for at least six months;- Up to One Million in Identity Theft Insurance** which provides coverage for certain costs and unauthorized electronic fund transfers;- A customer service center to assist with enrollment, monitoring alerts, disputes, fraud, and other Credit Monitoring Service questions;- Full Identity Restoration Service if you are the victim of fraud or identity theft (which includes a dedicated identity theft restoration specialist who will provide you with step-by-step assistance, and form letters to contact companies, government agencies, and Consumer Reporting Agencies), and- Child Monitoring Services (for Class Members under the age of eighteen). * Daily credit reports are only available online. If you do not register online, you can call for additional reports each quarter after you sign-up.** The Identity Theft Insurance is underwritten and administered by American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, an Assurant company. Please refer to the actual policies for terms, conditions, and exclusions of coverage. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions.  Close-up of code on a computer screen for the Apache Struts framework, which was exploited by computer hackers using a Remote Code Execution exploit in order to allegedly steal the personal information of millions of people from credit bureau Equifax, Oct. 2, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  To reach the administrator of the Equifax data breach settlement or to inquire about its status, the email said to call 1-833-759-2982. Meanwhile, any questions about Experian IdentityWorks can be directed to the phone number 1-877-251-5822. Equifax We previously reported on other legal matters involving settlements for National Grid and a Plaid Inc. National Grid Plaid Inc On 31 October 2018, the Facebook page Hunter Alerts was born, garnering just 40 followers in its first week of existence. So far, all that page has been used for is the distribution of two political advertisements asserting that If you vote in North Dakota, you may forfeit hunting licenses you have in other states. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakota": Hunter Alerts advertisements   Those ads were promoted by North Dakotas Democratic party (known as the Democratic-Nonpartisan League, or Democratic-NPL) and linked back to that partys website with a slightly more detailed explanation of the claim: explanation You MUST be a resident of North Dakota to vote here. And if you are a resident of North Dakota, you may lose hunting licenses you have in other states. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakotas 2018 election. This statement, which was misleading for several reasons (enumerated below) and was provided with no additional information, citations, or exposition, was characterized by many critics as an attempt to suppress conservative votes in North Dakota because it targets a demographic (i.e., hunters) who traditionally lean conservative. (North Dakota also faces allegations of voter suppression efforts that target the more Democrat-friendly Native American population in that state.) characterized allegations Both the North Dakota Secretary of State and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NGFD) have told reporters they do not know what the ad was talking about. An NGFD representative told us via email that they cannot explain [the ad] and we have no desire to try to sort it out for [the Democratic-NPL]. We have had no involvement in the post. told The most generous interpretation of the Democratic-NPL statement would be that the act of voting in North Dakota, because it requires a state-issued North Dakota ID, means voters would necessarily be forfeiting claims to residency in any other states. Many states offer both resident and non-resident hunting licenses, with the former coming at a cheaper cost but with proof-of-residency requirements. If, as the Democratic-NPL seemed to be arguing, one somehow obtained a resident hunting license in another state but actually lived and voted in North Dakota, that other state could revoke their license if they found out you had declared residency somewhere else. (The Democratic-NPL declined our request for comment). requires Many states Not only was this scenario far more specific than what was implied by the two-sentence statement promoted by the Democratic-NPL, but it also suggested an unrealistic level of inter-state bureaucratic communication whereby one states hunting licensure board actively communicated with the ID-granting offices in every other state to make sure no one was receiving unwarranted license discounts. In most (if not all) cases, it was also simply inaccurate. As an example, we will present a scenario under which a Wyoming resident legally obtains a resident hunting permit in that state and then moves and legally obtains residency (and therefore voting rights) in North Dakota. In Wyoming, you must have resided in that state for at least one year, and during that time period you must not have been claiming residency for any other purpose in any other state (emphasis ours): Wyoming To qualify for any resident game and fish license, preference point, permit or tag, a person shall be domiciled and shall physically reside in Wyoming for one (1) full year (365 consecutive days) immediately preceding the date the person applies for or purchases the license, preference point, permit or tag and the person shall not have claimed residency elsewhere for any other purpose (including, but not limited to, voting, payment of income taxes, purchase of resident hunting, fishing or trapping licenses, etc.) during that one (1) year period. While several states stipulate you can no longer be considered a resident if you register to vote somewhere else, the requirements to receive a resident hunting license in Wyoming and most other states is retrospective and not prospective. If a hypothetical Wyoming resident switched jobs and moved to North Dakota to work, their Wyoming hunting license would already have been issued, and the State of Wyoming would likely have no idea that person had moved. All that would be required for that individual to become a valid North Dakota voter would be for that person to have maintained a residence in the state for 90 consecutive days and to have obtained an ID card or driver's license from North Dakota's Department of Transportation. no longer required An additionally misleading aspect of the ad is the suggestion that the act of voting could pose a threat to out-of-state hunting licenses. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, the Democratic-NPL states, you may not want to vote in North Dakotas 2018 election (our emphasis added). The only population of people this ad could possibly be relevant to are people who live in North Dakota, have a resident hunting license in another state, and also do not have an up-to-date North Dakota ID or drivers license. By not providing those supporting details, the ad does nothing to correct the false notion an already legal North Dakota voter (i.e., one already in possession of a state-issued ID) could put the legality of their theoretical out-of-state hunting licenses in jeopardy by going to the polls. The fact that this ad was released less than a week before the election also speaks poorly of its legitimacy. The argument presented by the Democratic-NPL is based on a highly implausible scenario that has state hunting licensure boards actively and continually communicating with other states DOT or DMV offices and would relate only (if at all) to a population of people who have claimed to be residents in other states for the purpose of obtaining discounted resident hunting licenses. Even then, it would not be the act of voting that theoretically put out-of-state licenses at risk, but the act of obtaining the state-issued ID required for voting. North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party.  "By Voting in North Dakota, You Could Forfeit Your Hunting Licenses."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  Schallhorn, Kaitlyn.  "North Dakota Democratic Party Discourages Hunters from Voting, Claims They Could Lose Out-of-State Licenses."
  Fox News.  2 November 2018. Lopez, German.  "North Dakotas New Voting Restrictions Seem Aimed at Native Americans Who Vote Democrat."
  Vox.  31 October 2018.
 Crowe, Jack.  "North Dakota Dems Threaten Hunters with Loss of License for Voting."
  National Review.  1 November 2018. North Dakota Secretary of State.  "ID Required for Voting."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  Wyoming Game and Fish Department.  "Hunting in Wyoming."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  North Dakota Dept. of Transportation.  "ID Card Requirements."
  Accessed 2 November 2018. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. As the premiere of the horror flick Jeepers Creepers 3 approached in September 2017, many posted messages on social media to remind potential moviegoers about director Victor Salva's criminal history: messages   Salva was convicted in 1988 on charges related to the sexual molestation of 12-year-old actor Nathan Forrest Winters during the filming of his movie Clownhouse. Salva served 15 months in prison and finished his parole in 1992. The Associated Press reported at the time: served Salva confessed to having oral sex with Winters in 1987 while directing him in "Clownhouse," a low-budget horror film about three boys terrorized by circus clowns. Salva, sentenced to three years in state prison, served 15 months and completed parole in 1992. Salva is a registered sex offender: registered offender   said Victor Salva, a former child-care worker who impressed Hollywood filmmakers with his early cinematic work, was sentenced to three years in state prison in 1988 for molesting a 12-year-old boy who had acted in two of his films. Salva videotaped one of the encounters. [...] The revelations came as the now 20-year-old victim, Nathan Winters of Concord, Calif., picketed a screening of "Powder" on Monday night in Westwood. Winters passed out leaflets urging the public to boycott the movie and said his family and friends would continue protesting after the film debuts Friday on more than 1,500 screens nationwide. Winters said he was "in awe" that Disney would even make a movie with Salva. "I can't believe [Salva] is allowed to work with children again," Winters said. "He should not be allowed around children ever again." At the time, Salva released a statement saying "How deeply I regret my actions." It continued:  statement I paid for my mistakes dearly. Now, nearly 10 years later, I am excited about my work as a film maker and look forward to continuing to make a positive contribution to our society. Caravan Pictures, the company that made Powder for Disney, also released a statement: "He paid for his crime, he paid his debt to society," said Roger Birnbaum, whose Caravan Pictures made "Powder" for Disney and reportedly didn't know of Salva's record until the film was midway through production. "What happened eight years ago has nothing to do with this movie." More recently, Salva's past hindered the casting of Jeepers Creepers 3 when the web site Breakdown Services removed the casting call for a 13-year-old character (to be played by an 18-year-old) upon learning of Salva's crime.  casting Winters never starred in another movie.  movie Welkos, Robert.  "Disney Movie's Director a Convicted Child Molester."
 LA Times.   25 October 1995. Guthmann, Edward.  "Concord Molest Victim Confronts `Powder' Director / Actor protests at Disney Screening."
 SF Gate.   25 October 1995. Goldstein, Patrick.  "Victor Salva's Horror Stories."
 LA Times.   11 June 2006. In June 2016, a series of photographs purportedly showing dozens of dead bomb-sniffing dogs circulated on social media, along with the claim that the animals were killed by Eastern Securities after their contract with the Kuwait National Petroleum Company was cancelled: claim Eastern Securities or E Sec was awarded a contract with Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC) to provide explosive detection dogs for their oil rigs. When KNPC canceled the contract with Eastern Securities, they were left with 140+ dogs that no longer had a job and were costing them money to feed and house them. Instead of being responsible with the working dogs and finding them homes, Eastern Securities chose the most cost-effective way of dealing with the unemployed working dogs, euthanasia. It is unknown at this time exactly how the dogs were killed or even if the remaining 90 are still alive. The images were first posted by Missy Skye, the founder of My Cats And Dogs in Kuwait, a non-profit dedicated to helping stray animals. The images received wider attention when they were posted to the Instagram page of Kuwait Animal Rescue Unit on 19 June 2016. According to these social media posts, 24 dogs were killed in the 17 June incident: Missy Skye My Cats And Dogs in Kuwait Instagram   There was an extremely sad and horrifying animal abuse/massacre incident at a security company based in Kuwait on June 17, 2016 in Kuwait. Due to their contract being revoked, they slaughtered 24 of their US K9 dogs whom were trained by USK9 dog training facility which is located in Louisiana, USA. This security company is an American company which worked with Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC). KNPC paid 3000KD (equivalent of $9900)/month to the security company for each dog. Early this morning, a brave lawer, Esmail Al Misri, representing the workers from Nepal at the security company and an avid animal lover, advocate, and rescuer, Mimi Maamoun, went to file a complain at Mina Abdullha police station against the security company. The environment police and municipality registered the case. There are another 91 dogs remaining at the security company. While they abused the dogs by having them on duty for 24 hours without rest, their foreign workers would not dare to speak up and raise any issues with the company as they were also being mistreated and abused. At this point, we as animal lovers in kuwait, USA, and other countries, we need to advocate all the animals by spreading the news and be the voice for these poor animals. We must help save the remaining animals! PLEASE NO DONATION IS NEEDED from/to any individuals or organizations. I will keep you posted as soon as I obtain further information. The reasons the dogs were killed and who is ultimately responsible for their deaths remains unclear. The Kuwait National Petroleum Company denied that they had anything to do with the killings, and unconfirmed sources told the Kuwait Times that the animals had been put down for humane reasons. A local animal rights activist, Mimi Mamoun, disputed that account: disputed The Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC) issued a statement denying any link with the reported execution of sniffer dogs that were supposed to be used by the company according to deal with a local contractor. KNPC official spokesman Khaled Al-Asousi expressed regret in a statement to KUNA that the contractor put the animals to death. Reports on social media suggested that at least 24 dogs had been euthanatized due to the cancellation of a contract and unpaid salaries. Unconfirmed sources said that the animals were sick and had been put to death for humane reasons. But local animal rescuer and activist, Mimi Mamoun has disputed this account. The dogs were not sick, only two, three I heard; in fact my Filipino friend who handles the dogs told me that the dogs were healthy and only a few of them were old but they killed them to punished the handlers who has filed complaints at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor (shoun) for nonpayment of salaries, she said. The dog training company USK9 Unlimited also commented on the incident, releasing a statement saying that they had not sold any dogs or trained any handlers for Eastern Security since 2009, and that they played no part in the recent mass euthanasia: statement SK9 RESPONSE ABOUT THE KUWAIT INCIDENT: There is a lot of confusion over a story about the alleged massacre of dogs by a Kuwaiti Security company "Eastern Security" (ES), in the country of Kuwait. TO BE VERY CLEAR: USK9 HAD NO PART OF SUCH AN INHUMANE ACT. If if this alleged massacre of dogs is validated, our position shall be one of absolute condemnation of such a gross and vile act against defenseless animals. At USK9, we are true animal lovers and have always believed and treated each and every dog as "man's best friend". To see these type pictures simply makes all of us here sick to our stomachs. USK9 has NOT sold any dogs nor trained any handlers for "Eastern Security" since 2009. Since that time, many other dog suppliers/trainers have sold dogs to ES and we have no way of determining who those suppliers are. We are hopeful that an investigation into the matter will reveal and hold all parties responsible for this tragedy accountable to the fullest extent of the law in Kuwait. USK9 is making every effort to monitor this story as it unfolds through a contact in Kuwait, but we have no way of validating information. We have made a firm demand that the authorities investigate this alleged incident and protect any animals that may be in danger if this incident is determined to be one of animal cruelty and abuse. We have see some media publications in recent days that suggest that the incident is in fact being investigated and we remain hopeful that the remaining dogs will be protected and safe. USK9 will defend itself vigorously against any story or social media postings that depict a false representation that USK9 was even the least bit involved in this alleged incident in Kuwait or is somehow responsible for the alleged incident. Eastern Securities confirmed that 24 dogs had been killed but denied they were responsible fpr the canine deaths. In an e-mailed statement, the company claimed that the dogs had been killed by a rival company in an act of "sabotage": On June 17, 2016, Eastern Securities, one of the premier private contactors providing K-9 security in Kuwait and other Middle East countries, found out, via a social media post, that 24 of its dogs had been killed. In what is developing into a case of corporate sabotage, a veterinarian technician, who worked for the agency where Eastern Securities leases its kennels, went to the kennels in the middle of the night, euthanized 24 dogs, photographed and sent pictures to a competitor of Eastern Securities, that have been since been leaked on the internet. Eastern Securities immediately launched an investigation and during the interrogation of both the veterinarian technician and the K-9 manager, an admission was made that Eastern Securities had nothing to do with the killing of the dogs. Criminal charges were filed against this depraved killer, who put down the dogs and an investigation continues to ascertain and bring to justice the names of additional culprits that helped commit this heinous crime. Eastern Securities has spent years building a reputation as one of the best providers of K-9 security in the Middle East. It is the reason government agencies and top corporations trust us. Taking care of our animals has always been and will always be one of our top priorities. To be targeted by our competitors in such a vile and ruthless manner is a despicable display of greed. We are asking that this case be prosecuted to the fullest extent and are working with the Kuwaiti government to ensure those responsible are held accountable and something this horrific never happens again. We will not stop until all those involved are brought to justice, said Bill Baisey, CEO of Eastern Solutions Group, the parent company of Eastern Securities. Facts to Know: A veterinarian technician, who worked for the kennels where Eastern Securities leased space, went to kennels at 3:00am on June 17, 2016 and killed 24 dogs. Pictures of the dogs being killed were sent to competitors of Eastern Securities. The technician immediately admitted his premeditation and commission of his crime and specifically confirmed the absence of any involvement or wrongdoing by Eastern Securities. The case continues to be under investigation by the Kuwaiti government and criminal charges against the technician were filed. With October marking Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the U.S., readers contacted us regarding a graphic circulating online sharing an alarming statistic regarding homicide rates for partners who obtained restraining orders.  The graphic, which was unattributed but bore the hashtag #DVAM2018, read as follows: 1/5 of homicide victims with restraining orders are murdered within two days of obtaining the order, 1/3 within the first month.   The figures were taken from a 2008 study regarding intimate partner homicides (IPH).  Although the data presented in the meme was accurate, it lacked some context provided by the original source and therefore could be potentially misleading when taken in isolation. study According to that study: About 11% of 231 women killed by male intimates had been issued a restraining order. About one-fifth of the female IPH victims who had a restraining order were killed within 2 days of the order being issued; about one-third were killed within a month. Nearly half of those with a restraining order had been protected by multiple orders. Victims killed in a shared residence (versus elsewhere) had lower odds of having a restraining order, whereas victims from rural (versus urban) counties, married (versus dating) victims, and Latino (versus non-Latino) victim-offender dyads had higher odds of having a restraining order. The type of weapon used was not associated with whether the victim had been under the protection of a restraining order. While the numbers used in the meme were quoted accurately, we are rating this item as a Mixture because it doesn't mention that the overwhelming majority of IPH victims reported by the survey who were killed by intimates (89%) did not have restraining orders in place.  Omitting this piece of information could create a false impression regarding the effectiveness of restraining or protective orders, and more recent data supports their use as a deterrent against intimate partner violence.  A 2011 study published by the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire found that the quality of life improved for the 213 women they surveyed who had received civil protective orders.  Half the women reported that the orders were not violated, and the majority of respondents reported declines in "days of distress and sleep loss" after obtaining those orders. published The report concluded by noting: Not only are civil protective orders effective, but they are relatively low cost, especially when compared with the social and personal costs of partner violence. The effectiveness is particularly relevant for low-income rural women. These women had more personal and social barriers to stopping the violence including higher unemployment and tighter connections to the violent partner. Rural women also had fewer community resources or alternatives available to help them. Therefore, increasing access to civil protective orders should be an important goal in helping victims and their children and in lowering societal costs of partner violence. We contacted Katherine Vittes, the lead researcher for the 2008 study cited in the meme, seeking comment but did not receive a response prior to publication. Vittes, K.A. and S.B. Sorenson. "Restraining Orders Among Victims of Intimate Partner Homicide."
  U.S. National Library of Medicine.  June 2008. Logan, T.K. and Robert Walker.  "Civil Protective Orders Effective in Stopping or Reducing Partner Violence."
  Carsey School of Public Policy.  Spring 2011. In late February 2021, several social media users alleged U.S. President Joe Biden used the N-word while addressing world leaders at a virtual event to discuss international security policies. As part of the Munich Security Conference, an annual event that convenes hundreds of policy makers from across the world, Biden spoke on camera for roughly 20 minutes on Feb. 19, describing his administration's desire to be on good terms with the European Union. Approximately three-quarters of the way into his remarks, social media users alleged he uttered the racial slur referring to Black people. Some people accused the president of saying the N-word accidentally, while others raised the possibility that he intentionally made the alleged racist comment. accidentally intentionally One conservative commentator pointed to closed captioning on recordings of the speech on YouTube as alleged evidence of the president indeed saying the word, despite the fact the video platform's captioning system runs on computer-generated, speech-recognition software that is known for error and not necessarily a true indication of what someone said. conservative commentator known for error   To investigate the legitimacy of the underlying allegation  whether the president at any point during the virtual Munich Security Conference event used the N-word for whatever reason  we obtained an official White House transcript, as well as a video recording via C-SPAN, of Biden's speech. White House transcript C-SPAN Considering that the social media posts made use of brief video clips of his alleged comments around the 16-minute mark in the C-Span footage, we focused on that portion of his remarks, specifically. At that point, he said, according to the transcript and video footage: "Look, the range of challenges Europe and the United States must take on together is broad and complex. And Im eager to hear  Im eager to hear  Im eager to hear next from my good friends and outstanding leaders, Chancellor Merkel, about her thoughts on the way forward together." While saying "I'm eager to hear," Biden stuttered, repeating the phrase three times. On the third time, the consonant "mmmm" in the word "I'm" blended with the next word, "eager," to make a "mnnm-eager" sound. That was the source of the social media posts' allegations, despite the fact that the hypothetical insertion of the N-word there would be abrupt and confusing, contextually speaking, no matter what the speaker's reason for saying it. A more plausible reason for the president's phrasing in that moment was his speech disorder. On several occasions, Biden has openly discussed his struggle with stuttering over the course of his life. It is a speech impediment and neurological disorder that may result in repetitions (D-d-d-dog), prolongations (Mmmmmmilk), or blocks (an absence of sound), according to the non-profit National Stuttering Association. The instance Munich Security Conference appeared to be a combination of repeating and prolonging phonetic sounds. discussed his struggle non-profit National Stuttering Association In other words, the claim is false  Biden did not use the N-word in that moment, nor at any other time during the virtual speech. The February 2021 posts were not the first to twist Biden's words to accuse him of using the racial slur. During a 1985 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing  when the president was a senator representing Delaware  Biden read out loud portions of a memo by Louisiana legislators that included the N-word, and supporters of former President Donald Trump attempted to frame that moment of Biden reciting other people's words as an example of his alleged racism. See our fact check into the claim here. here With a rise of interest in "green energy" fueling the expansion of automobile companies such as Tesla, one might assume that the electric car is a relatively recent invention. A photograph purportedly showing an electric vehicle from 1905, however, suggests otherwise: Charging an electric car, 1905. Follow us on Instagram https://t.co/lZW5cbBPnP pic.twitter.com/ABWshJASpn https://t.co/lZW5cbBPnP pic.twitter.com/ABWshJASpn  History Lovers Club (@historylvrsclub) July 10, 2017 July 10, 2017  This is a genuine photograph of an electric car charging in the early 1900s. However, according to the Library of Congress, this picture was taken several years later than claimed  in 1919, not 1905  and shows a Detroit Electric charging up between stops on a promotional tour between Seattle and Mt. Ranier in August 1919: Library of Congress tour Mt. Ranier The plugged-in car featured in the photo which initially caught my eye was a Detroit Electric, a vehicle produced by the Anderson Electric Car Company from 1907 to 1939. The photo is part of a group of promotional images showing the auto on a trip from Seattle to Mount Rainier. Other photographs from the group show the car wending its way through the mountains of Washington. Here are two more images showing this early electric car on its first promotional tour: images   The photographs also don't show the world's first electric car, just an early one; London inventor Thomas Parker claimed to have produced an electric powered vehicle as early as 1884. Here's a photograph of Parker in one of his earlier models: photograph   Sitting aboard is Thomas Parker, who was responsible for innovations such as electrifying the London Underground, overhead tramways in Liverpool and Birmingham, and the smokeless fuel coalite. Stoner, Julie.  "Caught Our Eyes: Its Electric!"
  The Library of Congress.  12 April 2017. The Telegraph.  "World's First Electric Car Built by Victorian Inventor in 1884."
  24 April 2009. In April 2022, a lengthy piece of text claiming that officials in the Australian state of Victoria were pushing legislation that would ban people from growing food circulated on conspiratorial websites, which presented the alleged bill as a nefarious plot to starve Australian citizens. The headline of an article on XYZ.Net.au, for example, read: "Psychopath Daniel Andrews (Premier of Victoria) Plans To STARVE Victorians." lengthy piece of text article on XYZ.Net.au On social media, the claim was boiled down to digestible memes and brief tweets, including the following:  The claim was not true, however.  This rumor centered on a genuine proposal by Victorian lawmakers called the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. That bill  which had bipartisan support, as of this writing  dealt with invasive species and other potential threats to Australia's agriculture industry. In a fact sheet about the bill, the state government explained its purpose and addressed the false claim that the legislation would prohibit Australians from growing their own food: Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 In a fact sheet This Bill aims to help safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets which are vital for Victorias economy. Claim: The State Government is passing a bill now which means you won't be allowed to grow your own food, they can forcibly come in and rip it all out.  Facts: * The amendments will help safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets. For example, by preventing contamination of food from pesticides.* The amendments will not result in the destruction of crops, nor will they prevent people growing their own food.* Information circulating online misinterprets and misrepresents amendments in the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill. Professor Paul Martin, director of the Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law, told AAP FactCheck: told AAP FactCheck What the legislation does do is provide a way of dealing with potential biodiversity issues and invasive species problems that have emerged or could emerge. Some of these are serious, real threats, and laws are being tightened in response, to make existing controls easier to enforce." Reuters spoke to a Victoria Government spokesperson, who also said of the bill: "No one will be prevented from growing their own food as part of these changes."  The news agency continued: news agency continued [The spokesperson] added that the bill was designed to support the agriculture sector, as well as safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets. Professor Michael Blakeney, from the University of Western Australias Institute of Agriculture (here), said he couldnt find anything within the bill that prevents people cultivating food crops on their own properties." here The claim that Australian lawmakers were considering the purported food-growing ban was shared in articles that also pushed other debunked conspiracy theories. The article on XYZ.Net.Au, for example, falsely claimed that there had been an unusual amount of fires at food processing plants this year and that the U.S. government was paying people to destroy crops.   unusual amount of fires at food processing plants this year U.S. government was paying people to destroy crops While the rumor about Australian legislation gained traction on social media, it reached a larger audience thanks to podcast host Joe Rogan. In an episode that aired in mid-May 2022, he talked about the claim like Australian officials really were pushing a policy package that would prohibit people from growing their own food. Then, another person on mic presumably looked up online whether any reputable news outlets had reported on the alleged initiative and came up empty. In other words, the conspiratorial podcast was once again spreading misinformation.  spreading misinformation  It's important to note that this claim was part of a baseless conspiracy theory that the government (either Australia's or the United States' or the "New World Order") was purposefully creating a food shortage in order to starve people so that a nefarious group of elites could enslave them. These conspiracy theories are often connected to white supremacist ideals as they pit "regular" Australian farmers attempting to grow their own food against "others" who are competing for the food supply.  New World Order The XYZ article, for example, ended like this: "Well also need to defend our food supply, and a network of solid friends to help us. Time to tribe up, White man." Claim Victorians Will Be Banned from Growing Food a Load of Crop. Australian Associated Press, 12 May 2022, https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/claim-victorians-will-be-banned-from-growing-food-a-load-of-crop/. Fact Check-Amendments to Legislation in Victoria, Australia, Will Not Prevent Citizens from Growing Their Own Food. Reuters, 12 May 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-australia-agriculture-idUSL2N2X40ZQ. Hiscox, David. AFTER THE PANDEMIC, IS FAMINE NEXT? Richardson Post, 29 Apr. 2022, https://richardsonpost.com/davidhiscox/26794/after-the-pandemic-is-famine-next/. ---. Psychopath Daniel Andrews Plans To STARVE Victorians - XYZ. https://xyz.net.au/2022/04/psychopath-daniel-andrews-plans-to-starve-victorians/. Accessed 17 May 2022.