Posted on 09/03/2006 5:18:40 AM PDT by Man50D
As Samuel Jackson said in The Long Kiss Goodnight, "Everyone knows when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and umption".
Doesn't matter mom. The CBO figures for effective income tax rates have already taken that into account. And something like only 1/3 of taxpayers take advantage of any such mortgage interest deductions; that means most DON'T - and these are typically in he $50,000 per year and under income level - they're already accounted for by the CBO effective tax rates.</p>
It's not. I was being sarcastic.
Let's say the illegal economy guy buys a "$100 baseball bat". To the seller that means a $15 profit let's say and of that the merchant would pay $15 x 0.25 = $3.75 in income taxes. That much is certainly borne by the buyer - the guy in the illegal economy. Beyond that, the only tax paid would be on things such as the employer's portion of FICA, compliance costs, opportunity costs, etc. These would amount to a 9% price increase which would be $7.65 and of this only ($7.65 x 0.15) x 0.25 = $0.29 would represent hidden tax paid by the buyer; altogether a total of just over $4 for all taxes "contributed" by the illegal economy under the income tax. Under the FairTax, the amount would be the full $23. That's a major difference.
It's worth noting that even if the hidden tax amount were 23%, the total amount involved would be $4.48 for all income taxes - still greatly less that the $23 under the FairTax.
Nope - just learn something for a change.
I guess you missed the credit to the Tax Panel and that the quote was placed in italics indicating that it was a quote.
No you didn't ask for my work, you asked for "recognized sources". The Tax Panel used data prepared for them by the Treasury Department.
There you go with the link to links again. I don't mind following a link, but which one are you referring to (there are three at the top of the page), and why don't you just link to the material you want me to read.
Nor is it an entitlement either, but a tax rebate - just like it says in the bill - and funds for it are covered in the 23% revenue neutral rate..
Even the FairTax opponents have stipulated this would be a 9% savings making the house sell for earnings of $300,300 - NOT $404,561 (or even $330,000).Income taxes don't determine home prices. Most labor in home construction is from independent contractors and they won't lower their prices with the removal of the income tax because they'll still have to pay the sales tax just like their (100% paycheck) employees would. Over half of the components in home construction is imported, steel, nails, bolts, copper, even lumber and plywood.
A home buyer today may or may not have to earn $404,561 for a $330,000 home, but one thing's for sure, they don't have to come up with the difference up front nor would they have to finance it for 30 yrs...and pay tax on the financing too.
"You're more than welcome to put up your own set of verifiable numbers using recognized sources to show that the income tax benefits more taxpayers that does the Fairtax "
Ah, but I DID ask you to put up your own set of numbers. The ones you used are hardly those of your own but of the Tax Panel's which I'd already showed you were bogus - and did again in #572.
I'm sure that means you have no numbers of your own to work from so you'll merely keep pushing the discredited and dishonest Panel report. This report is hardly news - but it seems to be "all you got" since you can't think for yourself arithmetically enough to see that the even the 4th example is impossible in the extreme as it shows a 41% tax rate rather than 23%. Most people (being honest) would see that as a red flag.
You, OTOH, see that as an opportunity to post a completely ridiculous report written by the Brookings cronies in Treasury - and make no mistake, they are all opposed to the FairTax as they see it (wrongly) as a "stay employed" issue. However the fact remains that I DID ask you for YOUR work and not that of your source. You've done none of this work you see. As for "3 links at the top of the page", what post are you referring to?
What do hidden taxes have to do with the price of a house? What is the function of supply and demand?
I live in an area where a house built and sold in the '60s for $25,000 sells today for close to a million dollars. You're telling me that the price will fall by 9%? Ha!
If the value of homes did fall by 9%, what impact would that have on the equity millions of home owners have worked so hard to build? What impact would that have on the economy?
If financed under the FairTax, the mortgage rate will be a good bit lower as well, making home ownership much easier financially as well. But ehey would have to earn at least the $404,561 - more if financed since the mortgage rate would be higher. And there's no FairTax on the interest paid (e.g., no tax on the financing).
FairTax rebuttals are focus group tested. As such they are limited in scope.
The discussion has always been about the price of new homes falling with the removal of the income tax so your trying to misstate what has been sense is just more of your purposeful misdirection activity.
Even used homes would benefit from the FairTax though, as mortgage rates would decline making even used homes easier to afford,
Since you've demonstrated you don't "do numbers" I'll not give you any to avoid further confusion on your part - you're already confused enough..
Not so ... see #589.
It does address the FairTax, but does also figure the sales tax in several different ways. No matter how you cut it, the National Retail Sales tax is a loser.
pigdog does have a point, the commission's retail tax was completely different than the fairtax proposal. The commission's retail tax was honest. Assuming the government can tax itself to raise revenues is not honest.
Why not call it what it is, Creative Assumptive Purchasing Power. It doesn't matter how simple or accurate the arithmetic is, there are no real numbers to use. You can compute 'til the cows come home, but without knowing what take home pay will be or what prices will be, your math is speculation, not fact.
And the studies bought and paid for by men who obviously have a lot to gain by the passage of the FairTax are more valid?
Some people are just easy victims of conmen, and the FairTax is a classic con. All one has to do is suspend disbelief and focus on all the money their going to get - not.
As for "3 links at the top of the page", what post are you referring to?
Ya, that's my question. You've done it several times now, what's the link?
"... It does address the FairTax ..."
Certainly it does not as anyone with any sense realizes by just looking at post #609 where I pointed to the nonsensical 41% tax rate. Moreover if you read the Report you'll see that they've assumed twice the level of evasion as present now without any reasoning as to why, they cut our 20% of the tax base by eliminating anything due to government, and other purposeful changes to define their own retail sales tax which is nothing at all like the FairTax. Your claiming it is representative of the FairTax (if that's what you're claiming) is truly nonsense. It's not even close so the numbers they offer are nothing but misinformation.
You'll even note that Rongie knows is isn't the FairTax (though of course he likes it too as a hitpiece).
So, what you're saying is that only the price of older homes is influenced by supply and demand, new homes are priced using a defined profit regardless of the market.
Both my grandfathers were contractors, that would have surprised them to hear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.