Ron Paul & Mike Huckabee on IRS

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think what quade was getting at is that home prices would, (if taxes on the sale of a housing increased as a result of removing the federal income tax) go up, as the tax on the sale of the home would increase.

If the mortage interest deduction is removed, the price of houses will go down, and substantially. People would be able to afford ~30% less for their monthly carrying costs.

Removal of the deduction is only being discussed because you can't keep the deduction in the absence of the tax to which it applies. I don't think anybody has proposed remoding the deduction without also removing the tax it's deducted from.

If this year I charge you $1000 dollars per month rent on an office, minus whatever you pay for utilities, and next year I stop charging you rent, is the loss of the utility deduction going to break your bank?

Blues,
Dave

I think people are talking at cross purposes here:

Some of you are talking about the Fair Tax and others are talking about getting rid of the Federal Income tax altogether.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

Some of you are talking about the Fair Tax and others are talking about getting rid of the Federal Income tax altogether.

If we got rid of the Federal Income Tax, SOMETHING would have to take its place. In any case it would simply be a redistribution of the tax burden and in doing so, there would be some winners and a lot of losers. My "guess" is that if you let the wealthy people write the laws, you know who those people are going to end up being and the rest of us will end up being the other kind.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The only way to pay less tax is to spend less money

Which really, truly, is not going to happen unless there is a POTUS that proposes budgets that are slashed AND we get a Congress that votes for the cuts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The only way to pay less tax is to spend less money

Which really, truly, is not going to happen unless there is a POTUS that proposes budgets that are slashed AND we get a Congress that votes for the cuts.

And any POTUS making such proposals will be accused to starving children, running the elderly out of thier homes and so on.

Until we have a media that presents the issues farily, without agenda, nothing will change. This I have been saying since 1974

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Some of you are talking about the Fair Tax and others are talking about getting rid of the Federal Income tax altogether.

If we got rid of the Federal Income Tax, SOMETHING would have to take its place. In any case it would simply be a redistribution of the tax burden and in doing so, there would be some winners and a lot of losers. My "guess" is that if you let the wealthy people write the laws, you know who those people are going to end up being and the rest of us will end up being the other kind.

You mean the "wealthy" people who own homes would screw the poor who don't?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,090]

>And any POTUS making such proposals will be accused to starving
>children, running the elderly out of thier homes and so on.

Or of supporting the terrorists, being a "defeatocrat," advocating surrender and destroying our military. But no one here would ever do that!

>Until we have a media that presents the issues farily . . .

The media presents what we want to see. And if Speaker's Corner is any indication, FOX and CNN give their viewers exactly what they want to see.

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

so far no one gets past the fantasy plan to make taxes simple. They never seem to explain how to accomplish it, and the discussion centers entirely on the 'fairness' of the fair tax.

The concept of "fair tax" is absurd. All taxes are arbitrary. The government needs $X in order to operate and fulfill the wishes of the voters, and it raises that money in the way that causes the least loss of votes. That is all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>And any POTUS making such proposals will be accused to starving
>children, running the elderly out of thier homes and so on.

Or of supporting the terrorists, being a "defeatocrat," advocating surrender and destroying our military. But no one here would ever do that!

>Until we have a media that presents the issues farily . . .

The media presents what we want to see. And if Speaker's Corner is any indication, FOX and CNN give their viewers exactly what they want to see.

So you support what I say! You could have said that without getting all snippy

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The value of your home isn't based on the federal tax deduction you get to make on interest and taxes that you paid on your property during that year. The taxes your paying are property taxes that are at the state, city, county, school district, level.

The deduction is just a way to lessen the burden of the federal income tax that you pay as it is today, I.E. no federal income tax nothing to deduct...

Your homes value is based on the market rate, not fees assessed or taxes paid.

Dan, home values are based on the amount of money people can afford to spend. The primary reason the housing market did so well in the past 5 years (up till early this year) is that the interest rates were so low. If rates are 8%, a set of people can afford to pay a 400,000 mortage. If the interest drops to 6%, they can now afford to pay a $490,000 mortgage. Prices will rise.

Remove the mortgage deduction and buyers have lost significant purchasing power and will have to bid less. Current owners who were stretching to make their house payments would now be in the red and will have to dump their houses on the market, which will also depress prices. Just as we're seeing with subprime right now.

The positive element of not having to pay taxes on gains is false because 1) I'd expect the new tax to apply to such gains and more importantly 2) people have 250,000 exemptions on houses they have been living in. So they're not gaining any money here, and this money only applies to sellers and non first time buyers.

Last is the notion that people will have more money to spend because of the new tax system. As addressed, the Feds aren't going on a diet. You save a small fortune cutting down on the infrastructure surrounding the 1040, but that's mostly wasted time, not money. And remember, home owners are currently subsidized by renters, just as parents are subsidized by single people and DINKs. In a "fair" system, that subsidy is gone and so they're just as likely to have less money.

The state in question may determine how chaotic the change to the real estate market would be. I'd expect it to be more severe in states like California that have high state income tax rates which presumably would also not be deductable anymore (though the AMT currently is brutal to homeowners in such states). At the least the changes are highly unpredictable and such instability is very bad for the economy.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>And any POTUS making such proposals will be accused to starving
>children, running the elderly out of thier homes and so on.

Or of supporting the terrorists, being a "defeatocrat," advocating surrender and destroying our military. But no one here would ever do that!

Both, bill. The same tactics on both sides.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Quote

The deduction is just a way to lessen the burden of the federal income tax that you pay as it is today, I.E. no federal income tax nothing to deduct...

Then you've missed my point altogether.

The mortgage interest deduction is a way to offset the cost of the mortgage.

Assuming that "fair tax" repeals the federal income tax and it is offset by then levying a national sales tax, then current home owners get screwed since a part of their monthly mortgage payment would no longer get used to lower their tax burden. Since first-time new home buyers ALSO will have this apply to them, the prices of homes will go down as there is no longer a tax incentive to purchase a home. This hits the current home owners twice.

I think we have both missed each others points.

My point is that I would rather have more cash in my pocket per paycheck, than worry about the value of my home.

the sad part of all of this is it is merely a pipe dream considering our current system. federal spending is ridiculously through the rough and the federal income tax makes up 48% of the federal governments revenue.

Personally I don't believe that if we were smart, (that's pretty much out the window), we wouldn't need to replace all of that 48%

The problem is that there is now way this will happen with the greedy, money hungry society / gov't as well as the sense of entitlement that most Americans have today.

[quade 4]

Quote

My point is that I would rather have more cash in my pocket per paycheck, than worry about the value of my home.

Then I really think you haven't done the math! You especially haven't done the math on the macro level of how most American's save and what investments they have and which ones actually play out over the long run.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>And any POTUS making such proposals will be accused to starving
>children, running the elderly out of thier homes and so on.

Or of supporting the terrorists, being a "defeatocrat," advocating surrender and destroying our military. But no one here would ever do that!

>Until we have a media that presents the issues farily . . .

The media presents what we want to see. And if Speaker's Corner is any indication, FOX and CNN give their viewers exactly what they want to see.

Where do we find the the real truth, Bill? It's not in our press, it's not from t.v. news 'shows' and certainly not from our government. Where, do we find it? I'm serious.


Chuck

[billvon 3,090]

>Where do we find the the real truth, Bill?

In science, you can always go to the researchers themselves and see what they publish - and in some cases actually duplicate their results yourself.

In terms of current events, you can always go to the place they're talking about and see for yourself - if you can afford it and are willing to risk it.

Unfortunately, for politics, there is no "real truth." You could have a completely deranged guy elected to a position of power, and his view of reality will _become_ reality, at least within his sphere of influence.

The internet is a powerful tool, but I think it deceives people far more often than it helps people. It can serve as a mirror, and reflect your own views back to you if you use it that way. For example, I just searched on the phrase "huckabee is an idiot" and it returned 6,590 hits. Wow! Almost 7000 hits! Let's try "huckabee is smart." 1,530 hits. Does that mean he's more of an idiot than he is a smart guy? Not at all, although some people use the net that way. You can find whatever you want there.

The media is similar, although people choose the media that agrees most closely with their views rather than using it to find what they want.

What both _can_ do is get you the basic facts, and more often than not they're right. They will accurately report the size of the 2006 deficit and the 2006 debt, and you can get a graph of what it looked like under which president/party. That's a basic truth that's not very alterable. But what does it mean? The deficit is usually lower under democratic presidents. Does that mean that they are good at lowering spending? Does it mean that the republicans preceding them were good at lowering spending, and it didn't "kick in" for a few years? Or is it more a measure of the economy, which presidents don't have much influence over?

That's where political interpretation comes in, and the interpretation is where there is no 'real truth.' Democrats think the president bravely risked his political career to lower the deficit and help all americans. Republicans think that democratic presidents increase spending and just take credit for republican gains. Which one is right? Or are they both wrong? There's no absolute answer to that.

[masterrig 1]

That's pretty much what I figured. I appreciate your response. I watch the news from all the big sources yet, I look around me and what I'm seeing is not what the news-readers are saying. There's a lot of 'smoke and mirrors' from our government so, there's nothing new there. This country has quite a few 'problems' yet, all we get from our government is all these little 'shows'. The war on drugs, our border situation, an un-believable national debt, a war that is costing the lives of our soldiers and sailors that's not about Iraqi freedom at all, foreign governments buying our country, jobs moving to foreign countries, our de-valued dollar from too much spending and so-on. Yet, we are lulled by our government into believing that everything is just 'fine'. I really worry about this country.


Chuck

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Quote

My point is that I would rather have more cash in my pocket per paycheck, than worry about the value of my home.

Then I really think you haven't done the math! You especially haven't done the math on the macro level of how most American's save and what investments they have and which ones actually play out over the long run.

I guess I'm not like most Americans then...

I don't consider my home as my largest investment, especially considering the current trend in the housing market. But that's just me.

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My point is that I would rather have more cash in my pocket per paycheck, than worry about the value of my home.

Then I really think you haven't done the math! You especially haven't done the math on the macro level of how most American's save and what investments they have and which ones actually play out over the long run.

I guess I'm not like most Americans then...

I don't consider my home as my largest investment, especially considering the current trend in the housing market. But that's just me.

Probably the best investment made on any of our behalves is the investment someone made in our education. See attached figure.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

Probably the best investment made on any of our behalves is the investment someone made in our education. See attached figure.

With all due respect, that's not really an "investment" John unless you're talking about parents and the ability of their children to take care of them in their old age.

That said, I -WISH- it was an investment in the future of our country, but the taxes -I- pay that goes to the school system has been very poorly managed. I don't see it as an investment in -my- future or even the future of the country. It's more like armed robbery at this point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Someone who chooses to go to grad school or business/law school is making an investment choice. Oddly, it's often a negative investment when it comes to getting a master's - many are better off with the extra years of working experience if they don't get the ph.d, and even then it's not always a positive - in terms of dollars. For life value, an individual call.

[joedirt 0]

Quote

The concept of "fair tax" is absurd.

Is that supposed to be some kind of British humor?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Probably the best investment made on any of our behalves is the investment someone made in our education. See attached figure.

With all due respect, that's not really an "investment" John unless you're talking about parents and the ability of their children to take care of them in their old age.

That said, I -WISH- it was an investment in the future of our country, but the taxes -I- pay that goes to the school system has been very poorly managed. I don't see it as an investment in -my- future or even the future of the country. It's more like armed robbery at this point.

++ ESPECIALLY when it's only property owners that have to pay that tax.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

The concept of "fair tax" is absurd.

Is that supposed to be some kind of British humor?

No.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Probably the best investment made on any of our behalves is the investment someone made in our education. See attached figure.

With all due respect, that's not really an "investment" John unless you're talking about parents and the ability of their children to take care of them in their old age.

That said, I -WISH- it was an investment in the future of our country, but the taxes -I- pay that goes to the school system has been very poorly managed. I don't see it as an investment in -my- future or even the future of the country. It's more like armed robbery at this point.

++ ESPECIALLY when it's only property owners that have to pay that tax.

"The concept of "fair tax" is absurd".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"The concept of "fair tax" is absurd".

Perhaps - but it's no less absurd than the insane maze of taxes and regulations that we have now.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

"The concept of "fair tax" is absurd".

the use of the word "fair" is subjective and thus pointless

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants