Posted on 05/11/2007 5:30:56 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
I have a little scenario I would like to paint for those of you out there who just insist on finding something wrong with the FairTax. Admittedly, the FairTax isn't perfect. No tax plan is. How, after all, can you come up with a perfect way for a government to take its operating funds from its subjects? If you know an easier and more equitable way to do it, by all means, let me know!
I'm going to ask you to crank up your imagination for a moment here ... and by "you," I mean those of you who think that this FairTax thing is a bad idea and you're not prepared to come on board.
I want you to imagine a scenario. Don't worry about whether or not this scenario is possible .. Just accept it as I present it, and then consider the alternative picture I'm going to also present. Simple as that.
Let's imagine that the FairTax is the law. We've been operating under the FairTax since the day you drew your first paycheck. It's all you know. Here is your imaginarily "reality."
On every payday you get your complete paycheck. There are no deductions. If you earn $2,000 per week, you get a check for $4,000 every two weeks. You never have to save receipts or create any records pertaining to federal taxes. You can invest money without paying any taxes on it. You don't have to pay taxes on the money you earn through your investment portfolio. You pay no taxes on any money you put in your savings account. When you die you get to leave your entire estate, everything you own, to whomever you wish. The federal government will take no taxes from your estate. Your death is not a taxable event. When you go to the store to buy an item, and the price tag says $19.99, you will had a $20 bill to the cashier and get one penny back. The price tag is the price. There are four people in your household. You, your spouse and two rug rats. At the beginning of every month you get a check or a credit to your checking or charge card account in the amount of $506.00 to compensate you for the federal sales taxes that are included in the price of everything you buy; right up to the poverty level.
All in all .. not such a bad deal. You keep all of the money you earn and you get five hundred bucks a month from the feds. Plus .. you only pay taxes when you spend money.
Now .. .here comes some politician who has a grand scheme for a new tax system. He wants to explain it to you. Here's his great idea ..... give him a listen and tell us what you think.
The plan is simple. First the federal sales tax is going to be removed from the price of everything you buy. This will mean that everything will cost 23% less than it does now. But ... he's going to levy an income tax on every single individual and business who plays any role at all in bringing those products to the marketplace. These people and companies are all going to pass the cost of these taxes down the economic line to the final consumer of the products they manufacture. These taxes will end up embedded into the prices of products in our retail marketplace, bringing those prices right up to the current level. So .. no loss, no gain.
Next your political benefactor is going to take away your $500 per month prebate from the government. In its place he's going to tax every penny you earn. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. Your salary, your investment income, winnings at the track ... whatever you earn and however you earn it, it's going to be taxed.
Wait! He's not through. He's also going to tax your wages for Social Security and Medicare. He's going to try to soften the blow by telling you that your employer is going to match the taxes he takes out of your paycheck, but you're employer has made it clear that this money is all going to come out of the money he has budgeted to hire you. You'll probably lose out on your next raise while the boss his accounting in order.
There are some more nifty ideas in your congressman's tax reform plan. When you die your family is going to have to file a complicated estate tax return. A huge amount of the wealth you have managed to build during your life is going to be sent to the government. Your survivors may well have to sell the family business in order to come up with the money to pay for these death taxes.
One more thing .. you're going to have to keep records of all of your financial transactions. Every year you're going to have to spend no less than about 30 hours or spend hundreds of dollars to hire someone to fill out tax forms for you. If mistakes are made you will be hit with a huge penalty and interest. Oh .. and the government is going to have access to all of your financial records to make sure that you are paying everything you "owe."
The question, of course, is why does this politician want to change the tax system in this way? Power, that's why. They want to be able to enact little changes to the tax code that will benefit certain constituents ... which constituents will then benefit the politicians -- with money or with votes. Under the FairTax system these politicians have no power to favor one group of voters over another for the benefit of votes. The new system would give them that power.
Your choice, my friends. If we had the FairTax now ... would you be willing to make the switch?
You are the one with a problem. That was not my argument, and I made no such claim one way or the other on that. I made the point about competitiveness between old and new homes. I don't know why you can't seem to follow.
to wit:
New home sales will not be impacted at all. The NRST will be financed as part of the mortgage. The increase in monthly payments is more than offset by the increase in the paycheck.
and you made the claim in Post #98:
to wit:
Whether it is included in the mortgage makes no difference.
Back up your statement by showing us your calculations.
Why should I back up your claim? You make no sense. You twist it to try to make it my claim, which it never was. One post you say it was my claim, then you admit it was yours. What you said has little to do with what I said.
Could happen, assuming they weren’t all obsessive compulsive.
They aren’t the folks we’re talkin’ about though.
You’re not going to convince me that an income tax, especially the way it is implemented now, is better than the Fair Tax.
You were asked to back up your claim which is listed in Post #98 to wit:
Whether it is included in the mortgage makes no difference.
Show the calculations to back up your claim.
Zero and zero. There are not a large amount of illegals in Indiana, at least not outside of Indy. A drywall contractor used Mexicans on a job once, I have no idea if they were illegals or not. I told him I did not want them on my jobsite again because they made a huge mess and did not clean up.
You just made a claim. You are not very honest, as you provided no backup what so ever in your post. I could really care less though as it had nothing to do with my arguement. There are a million different scenerios and tons of different assumptions you could make all giving completely different answers to your so-called challenge. Why not pick an old couple on tax-free fixed income and see how they fare when prices increase under the fairtax. I doubt if the prebate will be enough to bring them back to their existing standard of living.
You were asked to back up your claim which is listed in Post #98 to wit:
I have provided rationale and even calculations in posts 60, 113, 115, and 187. You have provided nothing. Is it too hard for you to understand that new housing competes directly with old housing????? I lose sales to existing homes all the time, and you add a 30% price disadvantage on new homes and new home builders will lose even more sales. Really, is it that tough for you???? Would you pay a 30% premium on a house just becuase it is a few years newer????? Really?????? This isn't rocket science, but it appears to be to you.
You have provided no calculations to support your claim that it does not matter if the NRST is financed in the mortgage.
Show us where you calculated NRST as part of a mortgage.
Try to understand the difference between an inclusive tax and and exclusive tax. I knew this was what you were going to present and it is thoroughly discounted in #47 of link you provide. Read it and try to understand the math. Clearly, you don't undestand the difference between an inclusive tax and an exclusive tax. This is where your misunderstanding lies.
BTW, Wikipedia is a very questionable reference. Surely you've heard about all the lawsuits that have errupted because of false information being posted there?
First- the politicians and other assorted advocates of big government DON'T want this. It undercuts their cozy relationship with special interest lobbyists, who love to get their little favors from the manipulation of the current tax code.
Second- there is a vastly reduced 'vote buying potential' with the FairTax in place. The elimination of giveaways and entitlements, such as the EIC and graduated tax rates, puts every taxpayer on equal footing regardless of income. Politicians can no longer portray themselves as defenders of one class against another- at least as that tactic relates to Federal taxation.
I can easily think of something more insane than giving them this tool- the system we currently are forced to live under.
I do understand it. Show me where I have made an erroneous statement. In post 135, you said the sales tax on a $100 item would add $23 to the item. If you still don't get it will be a $130 item after tax is added, then you are the one with the misunderstanding. And please don't confuse your ignorance with me lying. You have no idea what you are talking about. You really don't look intelligent when you namecall when it is YOU who do not understand it.
BTW, Wikipedia is a very questionable reference.
FairTax on Wikipedia offers a perfectly clear and accurate explaination of what is going on. Perhaps you should read and understand it, it would help. However, even the fairtax admits it is a 30% sales tax in the traditional concept, so whether Wikipedia is 'questionable' is mute. Fairtax.org says they convert it to an inclusive rate of 23% for comparison purposes to how income tax is calculated, but it serves to mislead lots of people, including you to believing it is a lower rate. It is a 30% sales tax as all states implement sales tax today and how virtually all people understand sales tax rates.
How about responding to Post #208?
Show me why I care? I have told you a dozen times now it makes no difference to my arguement. That is your point. You have dishonestly stated you have backed up your claim over and over, but you never have. What is it with fairtax supporters and being dishonest?
And besides, you have not answered the question I have asked you. How much does the fairtax organization pay you to mindless bump fairtax thread with non-arguements? They do pay people to post on forums.
Geez, this is stupid. I have done so already in post 60, 113, 115, 187, and 207. Does fairtax.org clone you guys?
Sorry, I meant to add a sentence to my quote and it ended up in yours....I wondered what happened to it.
All those posts you keep listing make no mention of calculations of the NRST included in the mortgage.
So you continue to dodge and evade.
To repeat for morning viewers, you stated in Post #98 that it made no difference whether the NRST was included in the mortgage or not and in Post #207 and again #214 you claim that you have made all sorts of calculations to back up your claim that it makes no difference if the NRST is included in the mortgage. But that is false.
Whare are your calculations for the NRST as part of the mortgage?
Are you going to answer or continue to BS around the question?
It is not my point, it is YOURS. It is a pointless calculation.
So you continue to dodge and evade.
You continue to lie about what the point was and who made it.
To repeat for morning viewers, you stated in Post #98 that it made no difference whether the NRST was included in the mortgage or not and in Post #207 and again #214 you claim that you have made all sorts of calculations to back up your claim that it makes no difference if the NRST is included in the mortgage. But that is false.
My claim was that new houses will be a great disadvantage competing against existing homes, which will not the 30% sales tax added. Are you being intentionally dense?
Whare are your calculations for the NRST as part of the mortgage?
Where are yours? It is your point, you support it. You have stated numerous times you have supported your points. Oh that right, you have continuously lied about supporting your points.
Are you going to answer or continue to BS around the question?
My point was and still is that a 30% sales tax will put new homes at a huge disadvantage over sales taxfree existing homes. Get it??? That is my point and has been clearly stated all along. I have not made any points about mortgages except it makes no difference to my point. Under the fairtax, new homes are at a disadvantage verses existing homes. If you wish to dispute that point, please do. So far you have offered nothing.
Did you make the statement in Post #98 that it makes no difference if the NRST is included in the mortgage?
Can you explain your point. Yes, I do not see why including the 30% premium in the mortgage will make any difference in the competitiveness of new homes. A 30% premium added to new homes will make people more likely to buy existing homes instead. Just because people might be able to finance the extra costs in their mortgage will in no way negate the price disadvantage of new homes under the fairtax. Gee, if something costs $130K and the nearly identical item costs $100K, most people are going to pick the $100K item. Besides recommending a Kidergarden level economics course for you, I don't know how else to explain it.
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.