Tax on the sale of residential properties
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.
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 As of March 10, 2021, more than 95 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine had been administered across the U.S. And, as jabs went into arms, misinformation regarding the immunization continued to spread across the internet. COVID-19 vaccine A number of social media users argued in March 2021 that life insurance providers could deny payout of a death benefit to beneficiaries if the policyholder died as a result of an experimental COVID-19 vaccination. number argued   The claim spread widely on Twitter but appeared to have originated on an unidentified social media platform shared in a group called Parler Refugees, presumably a forum for those who previously used Parler, a social media platform popular among the alt-right and conspiracy theorists. claim appeared This claim is false. The original post was shared by a user by the name of Tracey Wiggins, and was specific to Canada. In response to the misinformation being shared online, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, Inc. (CHLIA) issued a statement on March 8 declaring that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine will have no effect on individual or workplace coverage or benefits from life insurance or supplementary health insurance, including disability, nor will it have any effect on the ability to apply for future coverage. statement March 8 No one should be afraid and choose to not protect themselves from COVID-19 because they are worried about it affecting their benefits, said Stephen Frank, President and CEO of CLHIA. All of Canadas life and health insurers are supportive of Canadians receiving government-approved vaccinations to protect themselves from serious illness and death. The insurance lobbying group American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) spokesperson Jack Dolan also confirmed to Snopes in an email that receiving the COVID-19 immunization will have no effect on life insurance in the U.S.  and even in instances of experimental drugs, life insurers have to pay death claims. At the time of writing, three mRNA vaccines individually manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech were being distributed in the U.S. All three vaccinations were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under an Emergency Use Authorization, which allows for new therapeutics to be administered during public health emergencies like the coronavirus pandemic. An experimental or investigational drug, on the other hand, is one that has not received approval from government regulatory authorities but has shown promise in treating a disease or medical condition, according to the FDA. Under this definition, the COVID-19 vaccine would not be considered an "experimental" drug.  Johnson & Johnson Moderna Pfizer-BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization FDA While COVID-19 vaccines are still being rigorously tested in broader-scale trials, health officials argue that the general safety and efficacy of the immunizations have warranted large-scale distribution. Snopes contacted the FDA and the National Institutes of Health for further clarification on the status of the three vaccines but did not receive a response in time for publication. We will update the article accordingly. As of March 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), has not detected patterns in the cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines. VAERS "Over 92 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 8, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 1,637 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine," wrote the agency. "A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths." In some rare cases, health experts noted that some people experienced a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis after getting their COVID-19 vaccine  approximately two to five people per 1 million in the U.S. However, reports indicate that anaphylaxis nearly always occurs within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccination and administrators will observe the vaccine recipient during this timeframe in the event that they need to respond.  anaphylaxis Correction [March 25, 2021]: A quote misattributed to a spokesperson for the organization is now correctly attributed to Stephen Frank, President and CEO of CLHIA. Though consumer advocates have long called for changing the payday lending law in Ohio, a criminal investigation has resulted in the resignation of the state House speaker. Republican Cliff Rosenberger resigned in April as the FBI was investigating his foreign travel sponsored by payday-lending lobbyists. He denied wrongdoing. Rosenbergers resignation brought votes on legislation screeching to a halt, including aproposed bill to strengthen consumer protections for payday loans. Consumer advocates are collecting signatures to put similar language before voters on the ballot, likely in 2019. The Ohio Consumer Lenders Association, which represents the industry,opposes the measures. Richard Cordray, the Democrat running for governor against Republican Mike DeWine, has criticized the state law. The current shutdown of the State House has delayed legislation addressing payday lending, where Ohio's laws are now the worst in the nation, CordraytweetedMay 17. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans that end up ruining peoples lives. Unconscionable. Cordrays statement comparing Ohios payday industry to the nation comes from a 2014 report by Pew Charitable Trusts. Cordray worked on changing rules on payday lending on a national level when he was the first director of the federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The bureaufinalized ruleson payday lending in October 2017, several weeks before he resigned to run for governor.Cordray has attacked his successor, Mick Mulvaney,for attempting to roll back the rules. Payday loans are small, short-term loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck at ahigh rateof interest. Aboutthree dozen stateshave their own payday laws, including Ohio. Proponents argue that the working poor need payday loans to cover their bills, while opponents argue that they trap borrowers in a cycle of debt. Aboutone in 10 adults in Ohiohave taken out a payday loan. In 2008, Ohio lawmakers approved the Short Term Loan Act. The law, opposed by the industry, includedprotections for borrowers, such as capping the loan at $500 and the annual interest rates for payday loans at 28 percent. However, payday lenders found a loophole: They registered as mortgage lenders instead. TheOhio Supreme Courtupheld the law in 2014, prompting one concurring judge to ask, Were the lobbyists smarter than the legislators? Did the legislators realize that the bill was smoke and mirrors and would accomplish nothing? Ohio is the only state where lenders operate under such a statute that was not intended for payday loans, said Alex Horowitz, senior research officer for Pew Charitable Trust's consumer finance project, which has researched payday laws in the states for many years. In a2014 analysisof states payday lending laws, Pew didnt flat-out label Ohio as the worst in the nation for payday lending. But it did find that borrowers were charged much more than their peers in many other states. By examining payday loan prices in each state from the four largest lenders, Pew found that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent (which is close to the 594 percent figure cited by Cordray.) No other state had a higher rate, according to the Pew analysis. The interest and fees amount in Ohio was slightly exceeded by Texas, but Texas has more protections for consumers, including a 180-day loan limit that Ohio doesnt have. While the typical loan is technically two weeks, in the majority of cases the borrower ends up in a cycle of loans for several months. While most states that allow payday lending cap loans at $500, Ohio lenders dont operate under the Short Term Loan Act, so they can make loans that are double or even triple the amount of conventional payday loans. The Center for Responsible Lending, an organization that calls for more safeguards for consumers,found in 2015that payday loan storefronts in Ohio advertised rates of more than 600 percent annual percentage rate. Diane Standaert, director of state policy, said that since that time some storefronts now reflect rates between 300 and 400 percent for some loans. But this is basically comparing the differences between (1) a very bad loan, and (2) another very bad loan, she said. The effort to change Ohios payday lending law gained steam in March 2017 whenHouse Bill 123was introduced by State Reps.Kyle Koehler,a Republican of Springfield, and Michael Ashford, a Toledo Democrat. The bill is similar toColorados payday lending lawwhich consumer advocates have upheld as a model example. After languishing for a year, itpassed a House committeein April 2018 about a week after Rosenberger resigned, but a full vote was placed on hold while lawmakers deadlocked over picking a new speaker. On June 7, theHouse passed the bill and it now heads to the Senate. The bill would cap the interest rate at 28 percent and a fee of up to $20 a month, which would mean that a borrower of $300 would pay $96 in interest and fees. Cordray said, Ohio's (payday lending) laws are now the worst in the nation. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans. Pew Charitable Trusts found in 2014 that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent. While the report didnt call out Ohio as the worst in the nation, no other state had a rate that was higher, according to the report. The difference between the 591 percent cited in the report and the 594 percent tweeted by Cordray is negligible. We rate this statement True. ' Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. The governors mansion -- a kingly abode for the governor and his family, right?Dont think like a peasant. It isso much more.Executive residences, as the National Governors Associationcalls them, are regarded as an important symbol of the states culture and heritage. As state treasures, executive residences provide an appropriate setting for official state entertaining and are often highly valued as a venue for community functions.Oh.The NGA goes on:Given the critical role executive residences play in official state and cultural activities, considerable care is required in managing, staffing and maintaining the executive residence.Gee, sounds like that could get kinda expensive. Just how much does it cost taxpayers to run the Wisconsin governors mansion -- ahem,executive residence?Too much, says state Sen.Bob Wirch, a Democrat from Pleasant Prairie in Kenosha County. Echoingacallhe made in 2002, when Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle was elected, Wirch wants Republican Governor-elect Scott Walker to sell or lease the 34-room manor.Over the course of one four-year term, Wirch claimed in anewsreleaseNov. 15, 2010, it costs taxpayers more than $1 million simply to operate.Wirch also noted Walkers owncall tocitizensfor ideas on how to make state government run more efficiently. After all, with astructural deficit, lost revenue because of a state Supreme Courtdecisionand other issues, the new governor faces a projected shortfall of$3billionfor the 2011-13 budget.It is hard to set a good example, Wirch said in his statement, if you are living in a mansion.Walker, who will beinauguratedJan. 3, 2011, plans to move with his family from Wauwatosa into the residence, said his spokesman, Cullen Werwie.He said Walker has no comment on Wirchs recommendation to sell or lease the mansion, which is perched on the shores of Lake Mendota.The homes replacement value is $1.63 million, according to the state Department of Administration. But Wirch believes that with its 3.7 acres of land, the estate is worth more than $2.5 million.Perhaps, like us, youve never been to the mansion (although you can see it inpictures).Well, according to the Department of Administration, the state Historical Society and the office of first lady Jessica Doyle, it: Nice. So, who takes care of it?Seven employees, according to Vicki Heymann, the mansions residence director. Full-timers include Heymann, a chef, a gardener and a facilities maintenance specialist. The part-timers are a housekeeper, a laundress and flower arranger, and the head of the waitstaff, who has worked at the mansion for more than 32 years.OK, now lets get to Wirchs claim that operating the mansion costs more than $1 million during a four-year term.Wirchs office said the state Legislative Fiscal Bureau put the operating costs at $265,000 per year. That would come to $1.06 million over four years.The senators per-year number is a touch high, but his four-year figure of more than $1 million is on target.The fiscal bureau told PolitiFact Wisconsin that the mansions operating expenses are budgeted at $262,500 in 2009-10 and the same amount for 2010-11, nearly all of which is salaries. Thats a total of $1.05 million over four years.In fact, actual expenditures are running higher, according to the state Department of Administration. They were $290,462 in 2008-09 and $273,340 in 2009-10. If that were carried out over four years, the total would be $1.13 million.Wisconsin is one of 44 states that provided a governors residence as of 2004, according to the most recentsurveydone by the National Governors Association.Heres how three of the other six treat their governors: OK, lets bring all this mansion talk home.In calling on Governor-elect Scott Walker to save taxpayer dollars, state Sen. Bob Wirch said selling or leasing the governors mansion would enable the state to cut more than $1 million over four years on the cost of operating the mansion. Based on the latest budget and expenditure figures, the operating costs do exceed $1 million over four years.We rate Wirchs statement True. Vice President Joe Biden loves campaigning in Ohio. He did so 15 times during the 2010 Midterm elections for various state and federal candidates. But Democrats still suffered a shellacking, he joked during an April 19 campaign fundraiser in Cleveland for U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, who faces re-election next year.Citing positive economic news, Biden insisted, however, that the political debate about his administrations policies now favors Democrats.A lot of things we took a shellacking for, the American public has had an opportunity to take a good look at now, he said.Biden noted the improving unemployment rate. And he added this comparison: We have created more jobs in this last year than the Bush administration (did) in eight years. We are in a position where we are moving to toward creating an average of 220,000 jobs a month. Not enough, but we are moving.PolitiFact Ohio likes comparisons and decided to examine this one because its emerging as a key Democratic talking point. When checking out job figures, PolitiFact turns to The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official score keeper of U.S. employment numbers.The BLS numbers are based on monthly surveys of employers. It updates the monthly figure as employers complete their surveys and it incorporates into the monthly figure a more complete quarterly census of employment and wages.First, we can quickly dispense with the Bidens lead-in: That the unemployment rate is improving.In March, the national unemployment rate dropped for the fourth consecutive month. At 8.8 percent, the rate is down from a recession peak of 10.1 in Oct. 2009, according to the BLS.Also, we can dispense with the last part: We are moving to toward creating an average of 220,000 jobs a month. Not enough, but we are moving. Since its not really a statement of fact and includes a prediction, well leave that to be examined down the road.But how about the Obama vs. Bush job comparison?The number of jobs as of February 2001, the first full month of Bushs presidency, was 132.53 million. The number of jobs as of January 2009, the month he left office, was 133.56 million. Thats a net gain 1.03 million jobs.To checkout Bidens claim, we looked back 12 months, from March 2010 to March of 2011. (Though Biden made remarks this month, April figures have not yet been tallied. )The number of jobs in March 2010 was 129.43 million. The number of jobs in March 2011 is 130.73 million. The net gain during the last year is 1.3 million jobs.That means 270,000 more jobs were created in the last 12 months than the net total of jobs at the end of Bushs two terms.A familiar detour, or caveat, is in order. Typically, the most recent BLS monthly job figures are preliminary and will change as surveys are completed and figures are updated. That means the 270,000 edge for the Obama administration could increase -- or disappear.Politifact also frequently points that when framing job figures, slicing and timing make all the difference.Republicans, for instance, like to frame the jobs story this way: The U.S. has lost a total of 2.09 million jobs since Obamas first full-month in office in February 2009. Thats true. Of course, looking at this way shortchanges the impact of the deep recession Obama inherited and the recent economic growth.Likewise, Democrats shortchange Bush when they ignore that the U.S. created more than 5.6 million jobs through January 2008, when the recession began to take hold.The bottom line is that the recession, which officially began in Dec. 2007, hurt the job record of both presidents.So where does that leave Bidens statement?Hes correct about the declining unemployment rate. Hes also accurate about the gains made in the last year. The figure also falls within the context that the recovery has been slow and painful but the job picture is improving of late, albeit slowly.Understanding how he slices job numbers in his comparison is a point that provides clarification. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Bidens statement as Mostly True. Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he died at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas." TMZ Sean Connery died in his sleep from pneumonia, heart failure and old age ... according to his death certificate. TMZ obtained Connery's death cert and it shows he died from respiratory failure as a result of pneumonia, old age and atrial fibrillation ... an irregular heart rate that can increase the risk of strokes, heart failure and other heart-related complications. Entertainment Tonight made contact with the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family." reporting Following his death, at least one advertiser bought ad space on the social media platform Reddit, or on a mobile app that displays Reddit content. The ad read: "sean connery's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." Connery's name was lowercase, likely because the "Net Worth Left His Family In Tears" part is a template. It's not true. It's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. We previously reported on the "net worth left his family in tears" advertising ploy with "Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek. The late Kenny Rogers also appeared to be a victim of the ploy. previously reported appeared   The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely lead to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage." first documented Business and technology blog Margins is managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, and 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 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 President Joe Biden recently lauded once and possibly future Gov. Terry McAuliffes record as a job creator when he led Virginia from 2014 to 2018. Unemployment went down in every single county, including rural Virginia by nearly 50%,Biden saidduring a July 23 campaign speech for McAuliffe in Arlington County. Bidens statement has a familiar ring; McAuliffe has madesimilar claimsfor years. As we examine the presidents claim, keep in mind that McAuliffe was governor during a prosperous time. The United States had shaken the Great Recession and was well advanced into what became arecord 128-montheconomic expansion. Both the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed people dropped in all 95 Virginia counties and 38 cities during McAuliffes term, according todatafrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Virginia's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was5%when McAuliffe took office in January 2014 and sank to3.6%during his last full month as governor in December 2017. During the same span, the U.S. unemployment rate dropped from6.7%to4.1%. Virginia had the13thlowest unemployment rate among states and the District of Columbia when McAuliffe took office. It ranked17thin the nation when he left. The number of unemployed Virginians fell from almost228,000to about144,000during McAuliffes term  a 37% decrease. The number of unemployed people in the U.S. dropped from almost10.2 millionto almost6.6 millionduring the same time  a 35%  decrease. To define rural areas in the state, we relied on amapposted by the Virginia Department Health that identifies rural counties and towns. Then we added BLS estimates for the number of unemployed people in each of those 50 localities. There were about 37,000 unemployed people in those rural areas when McAuliffe took office and 22,500 when he left. Thats a 39% decrease which, although sizable, seems a little below Bidens claim of almost 50%. We asked the White House for the evidence supporting Bidens statement and did not hear back. McAuliffes campaign tied the presidents remark to a 2018PolitiFact Virginia fact-checkon a similar claim by the former governor. McAuliffe said that when he had been governor, every single city and county in Virginia, their unemployment dropped, and in most of the rural communities, it dropped by over 50 percent. We rated McAuliffes statement Mostly True, taking slight issue with the part of his claim that most rural areas saw their unemployment cut by more than half. If McAuliffe had said most rural localities had seen a 45 percent drop in their number of unemployed people, he would have been correct, we wrote. Bidens statement, however, is slightly different. He says unemployment went down across rural Virginia by nearly 50%. That requires different math than McAuliffes claim. PolitiFact usually puts a caveat on fact-checks about employment numbers. Although presidents, governors and mayors love to take credit for good numbers, economists generally say politicians have only a marginal effect on the numbers. The economy, they say, ebbs and flows with global trends over which politicians have little control. While Virginia unemployment significantly fell during McAuliffes years, the decreases were in step with national trends. Biden said that during McAuliffes term as governor, Unemployment went down in every single county, including rural Virginia by nearly 50%. Biden is right on the first part; each Virginia locality did see a drop in unemployment during McAuliffes term from 2014 to 2018. McAuliffe governed during boom years and unemployment rates fell in every state. The second part of Bidens statement, that unemployment decreased by almost 50 percent in rural Virginia, is slightly inflated. It fell by 39%. On the whole, we rate Bidens statement Mostly True. The 2015-16 academic year ended withpomp,circumstance-- and skirmishes between Gov.Scott Walkerand professors in the University of Wisconsin System. Walker, irked byno-confidence votesfaculty are taking against the systems leadership, fired attacks on University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professors (including one we ratedPants on Fire). Several days later, on May 16, 2016, Walker kept up the offensive inan interviewon WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee. We have some of the best schools in the country, no doubt about it, Walker told conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes. But weve got to stop feeding into this national perception that how much you pay in tuition suddenly is a correlation to what the value is. Yeah, you want to have a reasonable level of support for the system; and we do. In fact, by the way, Walker continued, the University of Wisconsin System budget is the biggest it has ever been. The amount of money they get from state government is only a fraction of what they have overall. So, for all this hysteria out there, they have never had more money to spend in the UW System. With the 2015-17 state budget, Walker and his fellow Republicans in the Legislaturecut $250 millionover the two years from the UW System. That was an 11 percent reduction in state support and a big reason for the no-confidence votes. So, we wondered about Walkers claim that UW Systems budget is the biggest its ever been. Hes essentially correct, but with some caveats. Walker was referring to the systems all-funds budget -- which, as the name suggests, is comprehensive. It includes state tax dollars, but also an array of other funds, such as tuition, revenue from enterprises such as dormitories and athletics, federal research dollars and gifts. We asked for budget figures from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau for the entire history of theUW System, which began in 1973-'74. Heres a look at the last six years, when the figures were highest. Year All-funds budget -- actual All-funds budget -- adjusted for inflation 2010-11 $5.591 billion $6.077 billion 2011-12 $5.589 billion $5.889 billion 2012-13 $5.901 billion $6.092 billion 2013-14 $5.997 billion $6.101 billion 2014-15 $6.098 billion $6.105 billion 2015-16 $6.194 billion* $6.059 billion As you might expect, the current all-funds budget (2015-16) is the largest on record. But with an asterisk. Thats because in 2015-16, for the first time, the UW System included unspent tuition money carried over from the previous year in its all-funds budget. If that money wasnt included, the 2015-16 all-funds budget would have been $6.059 billion -- the second-highest ever, behind 2014-15, rather than $6.194 billion. Adjusted for inflation -- a better measure for comparing figures over time -- the 2015-16 all funds budget is slightly smaller than in four of the five previous years, but still near the top. State support Walker made it clear his claim was about total funding for the UW System, and that state money covers only a portion of the systems budget. But its worth noting that, adjusted for inflation, state support of the system -- known as general purpose revenue -- is in a historic decline, according to figures from the fiscal bureau. The highest state support, adjusted for inflation, was in the first year of the system, 1973-74 -- at just under $1.52 billion. That figure hit an all-time low of $1.03 billion in 2015-16. UW System officials often cite the reduction in state support because they have generally have more flexibility in spending state tax dollars than with revenues that are designated for certain purposes. Our rating Walker said: The University of Wisconsin System budget is the biggest it has ever been. The systems 2015-16 all-funds budget -- which includes not only state tax dollars but federal funds, tuition and other income -- is $6.194 billion, the biggest since the system was created in 1973-74. But adjusted for inflation, the 2015-16 all-funds budget is among the biggest, though not the biggest. And the 2015-16 figure includes unspent tuition revenue that hadnt been counted in the all-funds budget in previous years. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. Singer-songwriter Adele did not endorse keto weight loss gummies on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show." The claim appeared in an article on the scammy website newsurvey22offer.com. We first looked into the matter in May 2022. It's unclear just how long the article had been around. Adele keto Ellen DeGeneres article newsurvey22offer.com The page appeared to load one of four different fake keto gummies endorsement articles, depending on when we refreshed it. One mentioned Oprah Winfrey, which we already reported on. Another mentioned Adele. The other two showed fake keto gummies endorsements from the cast of the reality television series, "Shark Tank." keto One Oprah Winfrey already reported on Adele other two Shark Tank The article featuring Adele looked to have been purposely designed to trick readers into believing they were reading an Us Weekly story. In reality, the publisher had nothing to do with newsurvey22offer.com. The headline read, "Adele Told Us About Her Daily Keto Routine That Melted 87 Pounds In Just Few Weeks!" Adele Us Weekly Keto  The product name mentioned in the body of the article appeared to change depending on either the time the page was refreshed or the location from which we accessed it. For example, the page falsely claimed that Adele had endorsed Keto Start ACV, Gemini Keto, Kwazi Keto Gummies, Slim Mediq Keto Gummies, Trim Life Keto + ACV Gummies, and perhaps other similar products. Adele Within the fake Us Weekly article, Adele supposedly told DeGeneres on her daytime talk show that the secret to her weight loss wasn't diet or exercise, but rather keto gummies. Adele DeGeneres keto However, here's the truth. In November 2021, Women's Health reported that while Adele's weight loss regimen had little to do with what she ate, it had just about everything to do with exercise. She "worked out three times a day" with trainers, often including working with weights, going for hikes, and boxing. Nowhere in the Women's Health article did the word "keto" appear even once. reported weight loss The fake Us Weekly article also included a fake tweet that was never posted to Adele's Twitter account. It read, "If you ain't on Keto, you're missing out! I've been eating burgers, fries, cakes - pretty much everything since I'm supposed to be dieting in January. If you don't believe me, give it a try I promise you won't be disappointed." Twitter  The rest of the page falsely claimed that other celebrities also endorsed keto weight loss gummies, including Dr. Oz, Drew Barrymore, Kelly Osbourne, Rachael Ray, and Wendy Lopez. Other similar keto gummies scams made the same false endorsement claims about Melissa McCarthy, Drew Carey, Jennifer Hudson, and the cast of "Shark Tank." Dr. Oz Drew Barrymore Kelly Osbourne Rachael Ray Other similar keto gummies scams Melissa McCarthy Drew Carey Jennifer Hudson Shark Tank In sum, no, Adele never endorsed keto gummies, nor did she ever say they helped her with weight loss. Source: Miller, Korin, and Sarah Felbin. Adele, 33, Deadlifts 170 Pounds On The Regular At The Gym. Womens Health, 15 Nov. 2021, https://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/a30443070/adele-weight-loss-diet/. 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 early March 2021, Ari Fleischer, a media commentator who served as White House press secretary for former U.S. President George W. Bush, said on Twitter that New York's requirement that residents show ID before getting a COVID-19 vaccine was just as "sensible" as requiring people to show identification to vote . said a COVID-19 vaccine  hurdles require We can verify that Fleischer's tweet is real, while also pointing out that Fleischer is attempting to create an equivalency between two different issues when none exists. The state of New York is vaccinating residents in a phased rollout because of limited vaccine supply. Therefore, residents must make appointments to receive their shots and provide documentation showing that they are the person with the appointment, and that they are eligible for the vaccine during a given phase, based on factors like age and and type of employment. The elderly, along with essential workers and health care employees, have been prioritized. phased Voting, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. Voting is a constitutional right that forms the basis of the U.S. system of government. Unlike COVID-19 vaccines, access to voting isn't limited on the supply side so much as it is controlled by legislators who have the power to either make the process easier or more difficult. Access to voting, especially for demographic groups that have been historically excluded from it, has been an ongoing flashpoint in American politics. The issue gained new urgency in the wake of the November 2020 election, when a disinformation campaign pushed by former President Donald Trump falsely alleging widespread voter fraud incited a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Since then, Trump's fellow Republican legislators in many states have rushed to create new requirements for voters. Although they argue such laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud, critics point out such fraud is rare. rushed rare Advocates for expanded voter access argue that voter ID laws are a voter suppression tactic because, as the American Civil Liberties Union states: states Many Americans do not have one of the forms of identification states [deem] acceptable for voting. These voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Such voters more frequently have difficulty obtaining ID, because they cannot afford or cannot obtain the underlying documents that are a prerequisite to obtaining government-issued photo ID card.