Posted on 08/03/2004 8:09:52 AM PDT by CSM
That would not happen, they can't just selectively increase the rebate. Any increase would be to all people across the country and that would be based on the poverty limit.
At the 23% the revenue would equal what it is getting currently. The thing about this proposal is that no matter what happens with unemployment, there is still tax money coming in due to the fact that people still need to buy goods and services.
For this reason alone the Dims will oppose the Fair Tax.
The Dims love the poor. That's why they work so hard to ensure they remain poor. If they managed to dig themselves out of poverty, the Dims wouldn't love them anymore.
Shalom.
Embedded taxes are the taxes that are matched by an employer, corporate taxes, etc. that are passed on to the consumer. These taxes would be eliminated.
Is toilet paper? It used to be taxed in Florida where "necessities" weren't. Don't know if it still is.
Shalom.
Is food in a restaurant taxed in FL?
That would not happen, they can't just selectively increase the rebate. Any increase would be to all people across the country and that would be based on the poverty limit.An interesting thing is that the Poverty Guidelines are different for Alaska and Hawaii than for the other 48 states. Alaska's is about 25% higher and Hawaii's is about 15%. I haven't been able to find out if their Family Consumption Allowance will be higher than the rest of ours.
It's not just unfair, it's positively criminal. It's criminal on two fronts. The first is the unfunded mandate to do a considerable amount of work just to comply. Many people hire it done, or pay for computer software to help them do it, because it is completely unreasonable to expect to do your taxes at all well without specific educations.
The second is that you're treated like a criminal if you do everything in your power to file your taxes properly, but make a mistake. You can be audited, fined, even jailed (although I don't believe anyone is jailed for a mistake I could be wrong). You do your best to do your duty and obey the law, and in the back of your mind is the nagging question - did you obey or break the law?
Even if the "Fair Tax" raised less revenue or cost more, it would be worth it to create a tax system that was not so inherently criminal.
Shalom.
Just found this from Michigan Association of School Boards http://www.masb.org/pdf/taxpolicy.pdf
The definitions of “food” and “immediate consumption” in terms of Michigan’s 1974 Constitutional amendment exempting food and prescription drugs from the sales tax have been subject to continuous proposals for change.
So far there has not been any major changes.
Considering that Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US, I am going to guess that they will have the same levels.
When the income taxes and payroll taxes are repealed, the "embedded taxes" no longer exist and will evaporate.
There aren't any real tax benefits for home ownership. The benefit to home ownership is that you have the property.
You may be thinking of the tax benefit of a home mortgage. If you are, consider this:
If you pay 20% of your income in taxes, and you have an annual mortgage interest of $10,000 (numbers selected for easy math - not reality checked), then your tax will be reduced by $2,000. You get $2,000 back from Uncle Sam for sending $10,000 to a banker.
If you think of that as a benefit, then I have a great benefit to offer you. Send me $10,000 and I will immediately send you $5,000. That's 5 times the benefit of Uncle Sam's offer. Freepmail me and I'll give you the address to send the check to.
Shalom.
I honestly don't remember, but I suspect it is. FL has a tourist-heavy economy, and we all know how locals like to shove the bills for their benefits off on tourists. I don't think FL is any different. So they probably have high restaurant taxes, hotel taxes, rental car taxes, amusement park taxes, etc.
I haven't lived in FL since 1981, but I still remember the discussions around taxing toilet paper. It's one of those things that sticks, I guess.
Shalom.
In addition to the tax deductability of mortgage interest, this increases your taxable income on the state level, the benefit is reduced even more.
Considering that Alaska and Hawaii are part of the US, I am going to guess that they will have the same levels.Did you go to the link? Alaska and Hawaii don't have the same official HHS "poverty level" as the other 48 states. Alaska and Hawaii get greater benefits with other government programs that use the HHS Poverty Guidelines.
At the 23% the revenue would equal what it is getting currently. The thing about this proposal is that no matter what happens with unemployment, there is still tax money coming in due to the fact that people still need to buy goods and services.Actually, the rate isn't high enough if you include the reduction in revenues due to the "transitional inventory credit" the bill provides for. Businesses would get a ~$350 billion sales tax credit (they collect the tax and keep the money) for the items they have in inventory on the day the NRST goes into affect.
| Since taxes distort resource allocation, a critical requirement for a fair comparison among alternative tax reform proposals is that all proposals must raise the same amount of revenue. It is well known that the ST and AFT [Americans for Fair Taxation] sales tax proposals fail to achieve revenue neutrality and tax rates must be increased substantially above the levels proposed by the authors of the plans. Dale W. Jorgenson and Kun-Young Yun, 2002. source [PDF] |
I would like to see the bill have the "poverty level" tied to perhaps the bottom 10, 15, or 20% of income earned, without the possibility of adjustment from that percentage.
I realize that, but I am just saying that they may be based on the 48 state level. I can't say for sure as I am not the one that wrote the proposal, nor am I one of the people that will have to hammer all that out.
"On the other hand, politicians will use Boortz's rebate scheme to payoff their constituents--no difference from what's being done today."
-- That's not possible. Sure, the rebate can move up and down, but it moves up and down for EVERY American. No class warfare here.
"Wouldn't the tax benefit for home ownership disapear?
Yes the tax deductions would disappear, but then your property would become more valuable due to more people able to afford it when you decide to sell (they would have more income and would not have to pay any sales taxes on a previously owned home)."
-- Actually, your tax benifit for home ownership wouldn't disappear, IT WOULD BE MUCH LARGER. Under the current system, you only deduct interest payments on a mortgage. On top of that, you can't deduct Payroll taxes paid.
Under the FairTax, you wouldn't pay taxes on the principle or the interest. Furthermore, most homeowners can't even benifit from the homeowners' deduction because it doesn't meet the standard deduction level. Also, homeowners a quite a ways into their mortgage are primarily paying principle, so your tax benifit from owning a home degrades the longer you have the mortgage.
The FairTax will make an entire mortgage tax-free. However, there are a few caveats:
1. Taxes must be paid on NEW homes. The tax will only be on the structure itself, not the land. Furthermore, the final form of the bill will probably allow purchasers of new homes to split the tax up over the life of the mortgage for a primary residence, that way interest isn't paid on a tax bill. This is advocated in the CATO institute version of the bill.
2. Interest paid ABOVE the Basic interest rate, which is the Federal established rates, will be taxed. If the established federal long-term interest rate is 5%, and the bank's charging 6%, then you'd pay taxes on 1/6th of the interest on the loan (non-principle payments).
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.