One of many available examples:
Posing as "tax reform", the NRST (HR 2525) also represents a "land grab" where business interests are favored over individuals purchasing for their own use:
"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children,...But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
-- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785 -- PROPERTY AND NATURAL RIGHT
"A family purchasing their own new home for $200,000 pays NRST at a tax-included 23% rate. This means that of the $200,000 paid, $154,000 goes to the seller, and the Gov't receives $46,000 in tax."
You call that a "land grab"? Okay, next you say:
"A landlord/investor can exploit the business exemption of NRST and purchase the same new single family dwelling tax free as a rental investment for only $154,000. Tenants pay NRST on rent and Landlords act as tax collectors for the government"
Okay, so I sell my residence to a residential rental company and I don't have to pay tax?
I suspect you'd be giving me false advice if you said yes.
Now if I had a rental property and sold it to a rental property business, then yes may be they would get a discount.
Sorry guy, your argument does not hold water.
Try again.
Posing as "tax reform", the NRST (HR 2525) also represents a "land grab" where business interests are favored over individuals purchasing for their own use:
Posing?
H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Sure looks like tax reform to me.
Willy, how many years you going to continue with the same wornout irrational diatribe? You never change it or try even to clean it up to present a more coherent and rational argument for your postition. Just through it out there to bump a thread because you don't like seeing the NRST touted as a alternative to the income tax.
You continually throw it out inspite of the fact it has been totally refuted everytime you have posted it.
Now to answer your specific allegations:
- Landlord/investors enjoy a 23% discount compared to the individual personal home buyer.
- Individual personal home buyers must pay 29.87% more than landlord/investors.
This a significant inequity between individuals trying to buy their own new homes and landord/investors looking to buy the same single family dwelling as a rental investment.
ROTFLM(_|_)O!
Still playing rich man against poor man aren't you Willy.
You do know of course, that investors are home buyers and renters too, don't you?
Why don't you mention:
These factors more than overcomes any imagined advantage of investor over the homebuyer so that all homebuyers can become an investors too.
But then good socialists never consider becoming investors themselves now do they W.G.
Now, lets take a look at some of your points and see how they hold up:
A typical family purchasing their own new house today has 25% or more of their gross income extracted by the Federal government before they even think about buying a new or even an older house. That is not even counting the tax costs and costs of compliance placed on businesses of an additional 20 to 30% and embedded in the price of the new house.
Of course that landlord/investor also pays the same tax on the house he lives in or rents before he can ever become an "investor/landlord" in the first place. Or do you figure such folks live in NY allies and sleep on park benches.
Additionally, a buyer of an older home, is not charged the NRST, which is the case of most first time buyers of homes.
Actually not, as the Landlord/invester pays the 23% tax on the home he lives in whether rented or purchased, the same manner as any other individual.
Again untrue, the landlord/investor pays the same tax on the home he rents or buys new for his personal use. All individuals are treated the same under the NRST. Infact, because the individual receives the full benefit and control of his gross income, as opposed to merely after tax income under the current system. That plus the NRST prebate paid to ALL households provides an enhanced opportunity for everyone to become investors.
Under the current Income/Payroll tax system, the total contribution of the federal tax system(including taxes in gross wage/salaries) to the price of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for taxes alone. Including cost of compliance at around $600billion/year, increases that percentage to about a 47% total burden with respect to current family consumption expenditure caused by the federal tax system as it exists today.