Posted on 05/11/2007 5:30:56 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
It’s a simple yes or no question.
Here it is again:
Did you make the statement in Post #98 that it makes no difference if the NRST is included in the mortgage?
I have stated numerous times my position. With reguard to the point you made about new home sales not being impacted by a 30% sales tax, including the sales tax in the mortgage will not make a difference to the fact that new homes will be at a huge price disadvantage to existing homes. You seem hellbent at taking my words out of context to make some non-point. The price disadvantage new homes will have under the fairtax will hurt sales. More people will opt to buy existing houses. Why don't you try to dispute my point instead of trying to invent a new point?????
If you go into a store and see an item that has a price tag on it of $100, when you go to the register, it will ring up for $100. The NRST is NOT added at the register. If a store elects to not reduce prices based on savings from the removal of the embedded taxes that is their choice. But it will also lead to them going out of business because their competitor across the street will do so to try and get their customers.
Now everyone that goes to Post #98 can see the answer to the question:
Did you make the statement in Post #98 that it makes no difference if the NRST is included in the mortgage?
is yes. You made that statement.
The next question asked of you by me was to show your calculations that it makes no difference if the NRST is included in the mortgage. And you have dodged and evaded like some wild animal caught in a trap.
Real estate finance is a quantitative field. We hardly ever qualify buyers based on anything but numbers.
So let's try it again.
Where are your calculations showing that it makes no difference if the NRST is included in the mortgage?
I made the statement in context of the point you were trying to dispute. What the impact of mortgages on home sales is YOUR point. YOU brought it up. You support it. From the point I made about competitiveness of new homes versus existing homes under the fairtax, it makes no difference. Why do you insist on taking a statement out of context???
And if you go to a store and buy $130 in your fairtax world, the receipt will say $100 for the item and $30 for the tax. Is that correct?
You make statements that are not backed up except by hot air.
You made no calculations involving the NRST in a mortgage.
Real estate finance is a quantitative field. It is not for those that engage in blowing hot air.
We now have you on record in your previous post that you make statements in ‘context’ in response to quantitative questions. That doesn’t cut it. I will summarize this conclusion in future posts on FairTax threads as we see you again attempt to disrupt the discussion.
Always Right (post 70): I really don't see how new homes will be able to compete against existing homes sales under this scheme. The way it is set up, new homes will be at a 30% disadvantage from existing homes the day after this is passed.
Hostage (post 96 response to post 70): New home sales will not be impacted at all. The NRST will be financed as part of the mortgage.
Always Right (post 98 response to 96): Whether it is included in the mortgage makes no difference.
I am and always was talking about competitiveness between new homes versus existing homes. You are ignoring my comment and trying to change the discussion talk about people being able to qualify for a mortgage for the full price with the sales tax. Whether the same amount of people will qualify to buy a new home was your point. I don't know whether that will be true or not. You have never demonstrated that one way or the other. There are far too many variables to make a real determination, although for retirees whose income is not subjected to income tax, I have my doubts if that will be the case. That however was not my point. My point was about new homes being at a disadvantage against existing homes. You wish to continue to ignore my point and want to debate some other point.
Your context is hot air.
You need to do the calculations first. Once you have the quantitative analysis finished, then you can interpret the results.
Your problem is you jump into your ‘context’ interpretations without results. Your interpretations are based on nothing but hot air.
You have admitted you performed no calculations regarding the NRST as part of mortgage financing. But yet you have a ‘context’ about those calculations, meaning you have a hot air opinion.
That’s all we need to know about you. You don’t make the cut.
This is my last reply on this stupid subject unless you bring something more to the table. So far you have brought NOTHING. You are not honest in your arguements.
If an item has a price tag of $100 you will pay $100 and the retailer will keep $77 and $23 will go to the NRST.
Have you ever heard "you can't get blood from a turnip"? The fairytax solves that problem by creating a huge bureaucracy to dispense a check to every duly registered household in the US so that thousands of newly created fairytax collectors can extract Caesar's share (for a nominal fee) and send it back to Caesar.
Under the FairTax plan, is the low income household paying the tax, or is the government (wealthier, big spending taxpayers)?
If SS and Medicare deductions begin with the first dollar a worker earns, then even the poorest worker among us has money deducted from his check and sent to Washington. If corporate income taxes and the individual taxes of every worker involved with making and marketing a product are reflected in the final price of a product or service, then every single person who purchases that product or service is contributing to the system. Doesn't matter if they're citizens, illegal immigrants, rich, poor, or tourists.
The thing about social engineering is that government can't, not do it. The FairTax, itself, is a huge social engineering project. To claim that the income tax is a scheme to allow politicians to carry out their social engineering plans while denying the social engineering aspect of the FairTax is just plain dishonest.
Incorrect. Be you Bill Gates or a schlub making minimum wage, your "prebate" is identical.
So it is a 30% tax added to $77. Thank you. What is wrong with the $130 example, BTW? Does that just make it too clear? A $130 item, the retailer will keep $100 and send $30 for this tax. What is so hard about being honest about what the tax rate is?
Getting desperate?
Let’s summarize:
You made the statement that it makes no difference if the NRST is included in mortgage financing. You performed no calculations to support this statement and yet you drew conclusions without performing the calculations. Your conclusion is therefore unsubstantitated.
When the light is shown on your unsubstantitated inferences, you immediately attempt to discredit those that point this out.
Yes and no. To compare apples to apples, the FairTax needs to be stated in inclusive terms because the income tax rates are inclusive.
If you want to go with an exclusive comparrison, fine, also calculate the income tax and FICA on an exclusive basis and provide those rates as well.
A rose by any other name...
Sort of like the earned income tax credit - except one has to work to get an earned income tax credit.
States which have no income tax are better run than states that have an income tax.
Really? How so? I lived in Nevada for 7 years. No state income tax, but all the problems associated with a predatory industry like gamboling.
Living in a civilized society, I appreciate taxes are the price of civilization. Therefore, I want the least objectionable tax and the least obtrusive means of collecting it. The Fair Tax fits those criteria far better than the income tax.
Looks good on paper, as long as you accept what the sellers of the fairytax say and ask no doubt creating questions.
The sales tax, as we know it, works because it is relatively low - it just ain't worth the average guy's effort to evade. Add 30% to what is already collected, expand the tax to include activities exempt from the sales tax by the states, and that changes dramatically.
The FairTaxers persistent denial of the climate their tax creates for a flourishing black market is stunning. Failure to acknowledge that counter measures government WILL take to recover lost revenues will becomes burdensome and intrusive for the average guy is disturbing.
What is disturbing is your defense of the Income tax where 200+ million individuals have to be tracked and monitored for compliance.
Whereas the FairTax enforcement needs only to focus on about 3000 retailers, the enforcement is much more manageable under the FairTax.
But I don't expect much from you when you showed you can't even separate the notions of 'production costs' from 'market risk factors'.
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.