Posted on 05/11/2007 5:30:56 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
So your argument leads nowhere except to illustrate how dense you are.
You really don't know how the real estate market works, do you?
On one hand FairTaxers argue that the income tax motivates the productive to work less to avoid paying more of their income in tax (exercise control over how much tax they pay) while on the other hand they argue that the income tax gives the individual no control over how much tax he pays. Do both hands ever get together to make a congruent argument?
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1814
I thought you would appreciate this description of FairTax freedom
In addition to making American households dependent upon a monthly government check, the fair tax proposal expands the number of tax gathers to include individual tradesmen and entrepreneurs, and, even ordinary working people engaged in self employment, forcing them to all "register" with folks in government in order to pursue a livelihood [ see SEC. 502. REGISTRATION]. In short, the FT proposal would require these poor souls to become a modern-day regiment of enlisted tax gathers for government, increasing the number of tax gathers throughout the United States to an all time high, and compelling each to maintain burdensome and inquisitorial records and reports under a penalty of perjury [just as is now done with the income tax] to satisfy the wants and fancies of tyrants in government___ all the above to be implemented under the pretext of the "Fair Tax Reform“, a reform which promises to abolish the IRS and income taxation, but in substance and truth will only tighten the iron fist of government around the people’s productivity, while demanding the people to shamefully kneel to the iron fist of government, to receive their monthly government check.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wwwboard/messages/4894.html
That’s right, realtors will submit the NRST under the FairTax bundled through escrow and they will not pay an Income tax.
Escrow or financing banks will be the NRST agents.
Should realtors not lower fees and require the buyer to pay NRST while the realtor simultaneously benefits from not having to pay income tax, the buyer is going to tell them to shove it. People are smart and will not put up with that nonsense.
Realtor fees will stay the same. It’s easy for people to figue out. The realtor is not paying income tax. Therefore people will know that realtor fees will come down to keep costs stable as the NRST is added on.
You’re the one that is dense thinking there are no taxes embedded in the cost of things sold.
How could you be so daft thinking taxes are not passed on?
And your stealing my comments and trying to provoke a wimpy argument.
Why don’t you grow some character and face the fact you have no argument.
You are constantly on these FairTax message threads trying to interject your nonsense and getting nowhere.
Your stake is one of defending the Income tax against a superior form of taxation. That can only mean you derive benefit from the Income tax like working for the IRS.
I got news for you, there’s going to be a change in the form of taxation within the next six years because of demographics. You should think about retraining yourself to service the NRST and abandon your asinine attempts at arguing for the Income tax.
You got less than six years, get busy.
This sounds remarkably familiar... Willie Green's old shtick, and still equally as wrong, regardless of how many times its recycled.
The investment purchaser is buying it because he expects to do something with it -- if it's rented, the rent is taxed, which offsets any "competitive advantage" the landlord would get buying the property; he still needs to charge a high enough rent to make a profit (especially since it's no longer a tax shelter), but with the tax applied, the rent vs. own numbers are no improvement for him. Besides, tax is due on the property if it's ever converted from rental to a primary residence, which impacts his sales options down the road.
If the property is just held for appreciation, it, unlike other properties around it that have already had the taxes paid, is still untaxed, which means that when sold for a profit, the tax is owed on the original price plus the profit. This is not only no advantage for the "investor", it's a drawback.
You can call it a sales tax, but from a Realtor's perspective it is a gross income tax. Sales Tax = Gross Income Tax on Businesses. And for people who provide services, it ends up being a much higher tax because there are not deductions for expenses.
Besides, why should realtors lower their rate? Everyone else gets to take home more pay, why not realtors? They need to earn more to keep up with the higher prices too.
Yes, I agree. I am in favor of a National Retail Sales Tax, and one compelling reason is that I like the transparency of it being there in black and white in every retail purchase.
I support the FairTax proposal, although if I had my druthers, I would rather see a NRST with no prebate and a transaction cap of, say, $5,000 of tax per transaction so that large purchases such as that of homes and cars would not be so prohibitively taxed.
I think that the full 30% being applied to a home costing $300,000 making for $90,000 in NRST would be much like the old "luxury" tax of 10% in its dire effect on large sales. From a CPA website's take on that fiasco:
One of the more controversial provisions passed by Congress in its attempt to reduce the burgeoning federal deficit was the luxury excise tax. The tax, introduced as part of RRA 90, levies a 10% surcharge on certain high-priced items to the extent that they exceed certain statutory limits. Effective January 1, 1991, the tax applies to the "first retail sale" of luxury goods with a sales price above the following thresholds: automobiles $500,000; boats $100,000; aircraft $25,000; and jewelry and furst exceeding $10,000. the tax was originally projected to provide revenues of $9 billion over the next five years. It has become obvious that the original projections are, at best, unrealistic. In addition, on a larger scale, the imposition of the excise tax has been reported in the press as aggravating the plight of the luxury industries already hard hit by current economic conditions.
Legislators levied the tax on only five industries, allegedly to make the tax easier administer. It was decided, for example, that electronics should be dropped as a category since there are too many different types of dealers and equipment. Needless to say, the industries affected have been quite vocal in their criticism. The producers singled out are concerned that consumers who misunderstand the "threshold" concept may be resistant to purchase so called "luxury items." This would occur, for example, if consumers were to believe that $3,000 in additional tax would be owed on the purchase of a $30,000 automobile, when in fact none would actually be due. For the consumer, the tax is particularly worrisome because, once the statute is in place, it is simple to lower the threshold amounts or increase the rate. Opponents claim that the provision will affect not only the consumers, but also the industries, and in time will translate into lost jobs.
In the boating industry, this has already become obvious. According to a recent The Wall Street Journal editorial, the Labor Department estimates that in Florida, the nation's leading boat building state, builders laid off 5,000 out of 18,000 laborers by the end of 1990 and these layoffs are not isolated. Retailers, manufacturers, and services aligned to the boating industry are simultaneously affected. To provide even the slightest justification for these job losses, the government should at least be realizing substantial revenue gains. Nevertheless, according to the same editorial, the Joint Committee of Taxation has released collection estimates of which only $3 million were attributable to boats in 1991. Where is the justification?
How could you be so daft thinking taxes are not passed on?
Its easier to rebut arguments when you make them up. I didn't say taxes were not passed on. I did say that you don't understand the real estate market.
When a contractor builds a spec home, he hopes to make a profit after all his expenses, cost of lot, materials, labor, etc. are met. The final price of the home, however, depends on the value of comparable homes in the neighborhood and the market.
For instance, a contractor built two spec homes in my neighborhood. By the time he completed them, we were in recession and the real estate market was soft to say the least. It took a year and a half to sell the homes. During that time, he reduced the price of the homes several times and had to pay property taxes while waiting for the homes to sell. In other words, his tax burden on the homes increased even as the market value of the homes decreased.
When the market is hot, the inverse is true; its not uncommon for the selling price to be significantly more than the asking price.
That you would post some silly anecdote about spec homes in your neighborhood and claim some expertise in real estate is laughable and indicates to everyone you got a big image of yourself.
You are confusing market risk with costs of production.
Every business that produces bears costs. Businesses expect a market to cover their cost and yield back a profit. That’s Business 101 for ANY business. But there is always market risk, ALWAYS! Again that is so basic a child can understand it.
But you have a problem understanding what a child can understand.
I’ll repeat what was said above:
“You are confusing MARKET RISK with COSTS of production.”
I understand the real estate market much better than you can ever hope to.
Let's test the depth of your knowledge in real estate with a question. During the real estate market collapse in California in 1990, why did home prices not fall on average in the four years following?
You’re out of your league here. Your arguments wouldn’t pass muster in a freshman class.
The FairTax taxes the renter, not the landlord; the landlord merely becomes the agent of the state (and gets a little money to pay him for his efforts), collecting the tax and passing it on to the government.
The renter gets his monthly check from the government to "help" him offset the tax he pays to the government. (The government giveth and the government taketh away; blessed be the government)
The landlord has a competitive advantage when he buys a new home, because he pays less. The landlord NEVER pays the sales tax unless he converts the home from a rental to his own private use. If he sells the home to a buyer who intends to use it as a residence, the buyer pays the tax, not the landlord. If the buyer intends to also rent it out, no tax is paid.
If the property is just held for appreciation, it, unlike other properties around it that have already had the taxes paid, is still untaxed, which means that when sold for a profit, the tax is owed on the original price plus the profit.
This is news to me - I thought the FairTax exempted investment profits from the tax. Are you telling me now that if I buy a business and sell it later for a profit, I pay sales tax on the profit?
Because as a realtor my objective is to take the business away from the competing realtor.
It’s called market share.
Why are you asking such basic questions? Are you a high school student?
Are you such a pitiful debater that you have to keep resorting to personal insults to prop up your non-arguments. You have already had a post pulled from this thread for your child-like tactics and there are several others that would have been had anyone bother to hit the abuse button.
I understand that very well. I'm saying that the market has as least as much to do with the selling price of a home than the embedded taxes.
During the real estate market collapse in California in 1990, why did home prices not fall on average in the four years following?
"On average" is the operative phrase. Prices did fall in some California markets (notably, the area where I live).
As an aside; you really seem to be a hostile person. Have you considered therapy to get that under control?
What? You can’t handle the level of the debate and so you complain like a kid on the playground who doesn’t get his way?
The fact is that you have not backed up your claim. And as I said to be fair you can’t back it up because it is not capable of being supported. Now if you make unsubstantiated unsupported claims on such an important matter, then why should anyone give you the time of day?
Here is all that people need to know about you:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831865/posts?page=160#159
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.