To clarify your objections:
Religious organizations aren’t “consumers” so they wouldn’t pay the FairTax any more than any other business would. The pretax costs for houses would go down (not by a full 23%, but by some amount) so you wouldn’t be increasing the overall price 30%; furthermore, the tax would only apply to new housing. Existing housing would go up in value as a result of the tax premium on new housing (thus benefitting current homeowners), but again, not by the full amount of the FairTax, so you end up with slightly higher home prices, which can be paid with higher incomes. And medical expenses are taxed now, in the sense that they have embedded taxes built into them and they are paid (for the most part) with post-income and payroll tax dollars.
As you already understand, any exemptions open the door to the same type of funny business and class warfare the politicians play today with all our current taxes. That’s why the only politicians who get my support (and the support of the other FairTaxers, presumably) are those who support the FairTax as written, without exemptions.
Religious organizations aren’t “consumers” so they wouldn’t pay the FairTax any more than any other business would.All nonprofit purchases not for resale or export would be taxed by the FairTax. Kotlikoff estimated that nonprofits would have paid somewhere around $35 billion in FairTax in 2005.
Not exactly - any home purchased as an investment and rented out would be tax free. The tax would become due when the home is converted to personal use. So the 30% tax could well be added to the cost of a used home, and not all new home sales would be taxed.
BTW, the renter would have to pay 30% tax on his rent.
Existing housing would go up in value as a result of the tax premium on new housing (thus benefiting current homeowners), but again, not by the full amount of the FairTax, so you end up with slightly higher home prices, which can be paid with higher incomes.
So the FairTax would be inflationary.
And medical expenses are taxed now, in the sense that they have embedded taxes built into them and they are paid (for the most part) with post-income and payroll tax dollars.
Those that provide medical services will cut their fees by the amount of income tax they would have paid the IRS?
...and they are paid (for the most part) with post-income and payroll tax dollars.
The employer gets a tax break for the portion of health insurance he provides, and the employee does not pay tax on that portion of the benefit. Under the FairTax, would employer provided and paid for health insurance be a business expense and tax free, even though the benificary is the individual? Would the portion of insurance paid for by the employee be subject to the 30% tax?
What happens when the insurance provider pays for health services? Is the payment a business expense and therefore not subject to the tax? If the insurance provider must pay an additional 30% in taxes on the behalf of the insured, what would that do to insurance rates?