[Remember_Salamis]

First off, are they buying a new or a used home? If a it's a used home, no tax is paid.

Secondly, how much more money are they taking home each month?

Thirdly, the land underneath the home is not taxed. Only the structure itself is taxed.

Fourthly, this family could save up to buy a home much faster under the NRST.

Fifthly, The FairTax will most likely have a provision that the NRST on a primary home can be paid over the life of the mortgage, similar to how property taxes are paid. This is what the CATO Institute's version of the NRST calls for.

All issues settled???

[kpp_kpp]

fine. for the sake of argument i'll concede. (if it is only on new homes and only on the structure, not the land, then it is much more palatable.)

my issues is with the welfaristic, social-structure influence that the pre-bates give to the government. (a) i don't like the basis of them in the first place, (b) they open the door to manipulation.

the only way i could buy into some type of pre-bate would be if it were along the lines of "per human"/legal-resident. the whole idea of head-of-household, parents, and one dollar amount for adults and another for children, etc., etc. is still providing too much control to the federal government to influence social policy.

either go all one way or all the other. let the government support traditional family structures and the raising of children or let it be completely neutral. i say for taxation purposes let it be completely neutral.

[Your Nightmare]

Secondly, how much more money are they taking home each month?

It depends, if pre-tax prices drop, none. If pre-tax prices stay the same, what was previously withheld.

The FairTax will most likely have a provision that the NRST on a primary home can be paid over the life of the mortgage, similar to how property taxes are paid.

Where is that in the bill?

You are also forgetting: Sixthly, they will be paying taxes on a good portion of the interest reducing the amount they can pay toward the principle.