Hey Taxman - Tell Me

I don't think financing takes care of Part 1.
For every $100,000 dollars of retail value of the home you will be financing $123,000 due to the added taxes. Which raises your carrying cost to $44,500 (almost twice the tax due) for the life of the debt.

 

A couple earning $39,300 would do much better by going on the Dole and working under the table...as many do.

 

I'm not a CPA or anything, so my take on fixing the tax structure is personal rather than universal. I know I currently pay, between state and federal tax, 42% of my paycheck toward taxes. I pay another large chunk (tier 2 ) toward Social Security, which I do not qualify to receive but still must pay. Another 22% of my check goes toward tier 1, which is the retirement (Federal RR Employees RCP) I will qualify to receive. Even with all that income lost before I see it, I'm still slotted into the 10 percentile bracket, which basically means come tax time I owe a boatload more, even though I'm maxed out on state and federal withdrawl per payday.

So I don't know what needs to be done to fix things, but for me personally it's majorly screwed up.

 

I was going to "like" your post, but didn't want to appear as though I "like" what you're going through. I hope there's a way where we can phase in of the Fair Tax while phasing out the Federal Income Tax...so that we can "do no harm" if the numbers (for whatever reason) don't pan out. However, I think they will.

I really like the expanded tax base and transparency the Fair Tax brings...not to mention getting rid of the annual April 15th Income Tax deadline. It should be no business at all the the Federal Government what we earn or how we live our lives or have to plan the tax consequences of our life choices.

 

You're right... it shouldn't! But, that would obliterate the plan of the socialists, progressives and liberals who are trying to push their Marxist agenda on America. If they can control your money, they can control you. As anyone can see from (especially) the last 5 years, the socialists are doing everything in their power to gain complete and absolute control of everyone through taxation and the health insurance system (not to mention things like over-reaching Executive Orders, the elimination of the filibuster, the NDAA or all of Obama's lies... the list goes on).

The conservatives will need to fight back against this takeover with everything in their power in 2014 and 2016 so this country can once again obtain a semblance of fiscal responsibility, financial independence and common sense. Socialists (and their political brothers, Communists) and liberals have gained a foothold in this country in the last 100 years and, with the election of Barack Obama, they're starting to climb. But, they're only making incremental advancement. The conservatives will have to push the liberals down before they're too strong to fight back.

Liberals are an insidious lot. They'll creep up on you before you know it. In a way, they remind me of child molesters. They offer the kid candy before revealing their true nature.

 

So you think people will not prostitute and cheat the Fair Tax? As for the Government nosing into the business of how much you earn - keep in mind The Fair Tax does not eliminate State Income Tax and under the Fair Tax the State will be the collection and enforcement arm. Also the Fair Tax promises Social Security and Medicare benefits will not change. These benefits are determined based on your earnings throughout your working life.

 

I don't know, OKC, I sure didn't see either of the Bush's or Reagan, or any Republican ever, attempt tax reform, so they're just as much a part of the problem as anyone. Remember "No new taxes" and then getting a bunch of new ones? That wasn't a "socialist", "marxist" liberal who said that.

 

The taxation of which I speak is the governmental mandate that you buy a product or face a tax penalty for not doing so. This is unprecedented in American history.

 

Really? How many people do you think pay into Social Security who don't qualify to ever receive any, like myself? Probably a lot more than you think, and I bet they pay a whole lot more into that than those paying into Obamacare. So yes, it is precedented, very much so.

 

No. It's very much unprecedented. Social Security isn't a mandate. Ask JoeNation; he doesn't pay Social Security.

 

Its a mandate for me and everyone I know. Not sure how he gets away with it unless he either works for himself or gets paid under the table.

 

Bush, Sr. made a BIG mistake trying to compromise with Liberals. He tried and got crucified...by the same Liberals with whom he was trying to cooperate.

 

I don't know why liberals aren't signing off on the Fair Tax. Perhaps it is not being explained to them in a language they can understand..............

Comrades; The Fair Tax is progressive and in complete accordance with Section II Proposition 2 of the Communist Manifesto. The Fair Tax levies taxation on the citizenry each according to their level of decadence. As previously pointed out, the Bourgeois aided by the criminals in their Republican party have been able to pervert the progressive aspects of the Income Tax. Do not the Bourgeois hide their incomes in blind trust and off shore accounts. How can the criminal Mitt Romney walk away and pay only 13% on his profits. The Fair Tax stops these criminals in the check out lane. It taxes their 500.00 lunch, taxes their million dollar homes, taxes their fancy foreign sports cars. It taxes their decadence. You may ask, what about the Proletarian poor, the homeless, those in need. The true genius behind the Fair Tax is that shared property (second hand, used) is tax free. Most Proletarians, with a sense of cooperative community and environmental correctness, live in shared homes, drive shared vehicles, rely on property passed from worker to worker. Should however, a Proletarian be so arrogant as to purchase a "new" barbecue grill, then his arrogance shall be taxed. Please comrades, join with me a sign off on this Progressive and Fair Tax.

Thank You
Chairman C Jay

 

Here's a link to Beacon Hill Institute that has done some research on the Fair Tax....
http://www.beaconhill.org/FairTaxPapers.htm

My initial questions were on the tax base claimed by the Fair Tax advocacy of being 9.3 Trillion and US Census Retail reports of only 4.4 Trillion in retail, which jives with the numbers Farmer has been coming up with. There are a lot of things being taxed other than traditional retail or what the states tax. Rents are taxes, capitol gains on private home sales are taxed, home renovations are taxed, and my favorite, churches are taxed. All Interest and Financial Services are taxed. The government even taxes itself. There are very few exceptions; Education is not taxed and seen as an investment. The purchase of rental property is not taxed but as mentioned, collected rents are taxed, based on the no wholesales tax model.

The thing I'm finding attractive is that it taxes the front end (sales), and not the back end (revenue). I have met my fair share of "rich" people who expense everything and are technically worth Zero. Their home is a lease and written off because they throw parties and get together's for potential clients, not to mention the home office. Their furnishings are leased along with their car. Having had to collect on some of these choice individuals, you'll also find that the lease holder is usually a wife or relative, and as my lawyer once put it, they are judgment proof. My experience has been with concert and TV producers, so hopefully this is not the norm, but when things go well, they expense as much as possible, and when things go bad, they leave the vendors and production staff unpaid bills. As far as taxes go, they know the system well and are prepared to hold up against any audit.

 

Thanks for the link c jay!! The Beacon Hill analysis goes into a great deal of detail. It will take some time to go through it all. I also agree 100% with your assessment of the tax dodges of your clients. I've seen that first hand myself. Those of us that make too much to go on the Government dole, but don't make enough to take advantage of all the Income Tax loopholes are the ones that really take it on the chin when taxes are raised...not the Rich and not the Poor.

JoeNation likes to paint anyone who suggests eliminating the Income Tax as Pro-Rich and Anti-Poor...nothing could be further from the truth (the usual state of affairs with Joe). The Fair Tax is a Progressive tax that closes all the loopholes of the Income Tax and forces the mega-Rich to pay their fair share. It also expands the tax base and makes our products more competitive on the open market. Hopefully Joe will read the Beacon Hill analysis and give it due consideration and not just dismiss it out of hand.

 

It doesn't matter whether Social Taxes are regressive or progessive concerning your issue of the Government nosing into your business concerning income. The Fair Tax claims Social Security Benfits will not change. Social Security Benefits are based on earnings over a person's working life. So you'll still have to report your earnings anually so that your Social Security Benefit can be determined at retirement.

 

Not if we change the way Social Security is funded. I'm not arguing one way or another...just saying it doesn't have to be funded the way it is.

Social Security was originally designed as an annuity. Democrats raided the Trust Fund and moved it into the General fund. They claim that it's ethical to an fund the Social Security obligation through future payroll taxes on the young...turning Social Security into a big Ponzi Scheme.

Now they call it Social Security "Insurance" and people above a certain income shouldn't collect. If that's what they wanted to do, they should have been honest about it and described it as such when they originally proposed the bill.

I don't mind "means testing" Social Security as long as it's funded by the Fair Tax. Eventually, everyone will be so wealthy under the Fair Tax that Social Security will no longer be needed.

 

At one point in time I didn't have to pay Social Security, since not for profits were exempt at the time. Regan's Tax reforms removed the exemption shortly after I started to work there. The company was going to set-up a 401k to put our 7.5% into. That is exactly where Social Security needs to go. If the Fair Tax covers existing and future Social Security obligations, then the program needs to be fazed out and replaced with a mandatory 401K. Eventually it would reduce the cost of government, plus surprise the crap out of people who think they can't afford to invest.

I had the chance to view the C-Span debate with the link posted on #56 between Neil Boortz and Dr. Graetz. It seems that Graetz's main complaints were more political in nature, as in not what it is originally proposed but what it will become after congress is done with it. I think he does provide a valid point. Taxing churches, not for profits, special interest will all be deal breakers. The proponents of Fair Tax will need to be vigilant, and if necessary, ready to kill it should it become a political monster.

 

Funding of Social Security is not the issue I am addressing. The determining and paying of Social Security benefits is where I am at.