[Blackbird45]

Let be honest here, no matter what system you put into place some well-paid accountant will find a legal or borderline legal way to have their client avoid paying their fair share. This is the American way. Most of the time when you call customer service you know when you're talking to a so call Bob, it's a guy in in India or look at some of those American products you have in your home with an American logo it which made in third world countries. The idea behind this is to make as much money as you can, as quickly as you can at any cost. No matter what system you put into place it won't make a difference. This is survival of the richest.

[defrey12]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Except - as I said - income tax doesn't fund Social Security or Medicare. FICA payroll contributions fund it. It's a separate line item on your paycheck. Even if you don't have anything taken out of your paycheck for income tax at all - you'll still see a FICA deduction.

The "Fair Tax Act" has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with keeping the poor poor, and the rich, rich. Here's the actual text of the Act:


So - if you buy a condo complex (investment) then you are exempt from paying sales tax on the property. But if you're a homeowner and buy a condo in that complex, you have to pay a minimum of 23% sales tax on it.

How many people in this country, who are currently college students preparing for life away from their parents' homes, will be able to afford a house PLUS 23% of its cost stacked on top of it, by the time they turn 30? What kind of home will they be able to afford?

There's a good looking house in Ocala for $220,000. 1236 square feet, 3bed 2 bath, 2-car garage, built in 2001 so not very old. That sales price will now be 270,600.

Don't forget the states will be responsible for collecting the tax and handing it over to the Fed, and the states have to be paid for THEIR work - so you can just bump the property tax up to cover that expense. Because local/municipal/county property tax is not the same as sales tax. Closing costs on a home like that would be around $8,000.

So the $220,000 house is now almost $280,000 after all is said and done. That's going to make a lot of homebuyers ineligible for their mortgage. Even if they can afford the house and the closing costs, they have just been forced to lower their standards of what they can afford, assuming they need a mortgage (which most people in this country need, if they want to buy a house).

And yet - that rich guy who wants to buy a family compound and write it off as an "investment" won't have to pay a dime.

That would all be fine and good if your example held water, but it doesn’t. You don’t actually think that REAL ESTATE is included in this equation, do you? It has always been taxed independently by county taxing authorities and has never been part of the income tax equation.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Originally Posted by Pballer

The whole point of getting rid of the income tax is to starve Medicare and Social Security. Payroll taxes will not fund nearly enough for benefits. Gutting Medicare and Social Security is the Republicans' dream.

Just a guess here, but probably more than 99% of TV residents depend on Medicare and Social Security and yet vote for those who have this “dream” to eliminate both.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

Just a guess here, but probably more than 99% of TV residents depend on Medicare and Social Security and yet vote for those who have this “dream” to eliminate both.

I doubt that. Many public sector retirees who do not have to worry about Medicare and Social Security.

[Judy n Ron]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

https://buddycarter.house.gov/upload..._act_118th.pdf

Replacing all taxes with a consumption tax. . . basically a sales and service tax. . .

not sure how this bill will get implemented, and even if its a good idea. . . switching from income earned to good and services purchased . . .

That would be a disaster for fixed income folks like many of us. We could have used that during our peak income years instead of forking over thousands to IRS year after year. The most equitable plan would be to implement a flat tax---period. Say 12%. You earn 1M and pay $120,000 or if you earn $50,000 you pay $6000. No deductions, no credits, no filing, no huge IRS bureaucracy so they can cut staff. Fat cats pay their fair share. This won't happen either because the lawmakers would hugely dis-benefit from that. This bill likely won't get past committee though it's fun to theorize.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Caymus

I doubt that. Many public sector retirees who do not have to worry about Medicare and Social Security.

It is not very difficult to qualify for SS , the overwhelming number of people collecting benefits will get much more out than they put in. If a person has a public sector, municipal pension they may have very well paid into SS and would qualify for those benefits, except that their benefits are cut back considerably, without Medicare benefits they are looking at very expensive medical insurance, public sector pension benefits vary quite a bit

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by kenoc7

To the moderator - isn't this a political post?

LOL!

Maybe, maybe not, but the replies are mostly very considerate. . . If the replies get ad hominem, personal attacks, then the thread gets closed.

but since it may effect everyone's economic ability to live in the villages, to collect SS or Medicare, then keeping informed about current events, might be worth the read, similar to the gas stove ban. .

apolitical guy

[Nordhagen]

[QUOTE=jimjamuser;2175268]Illegal gang money can be stopped without turning the tax collection system upside down and favoring even more so the WEALTHY...........by better border enforcement and a greater budget for the FBI and local Police and better Police training. But, here we go again THOSE common sense proposals would require HIGHER PROPERTY TAX and income tax which the WEALTHY are reluctant to pass. And who can blame them? It is human nature to be SELFISH.........and they are in SPADES ![/QUOT
Under this system there would be no income tax! Also, the federal government does not get any of our property taxes, that’s a county tax, so they have no bearing on this.
Don’t you think that people who live in the USA should all pay some part of their income to support it? “Rich” people pay over 50% of the income taxes now. Over 50% pay nothing in income taxes. In fact, many of them actually get an “earned income tax credit”, an oxymoron, which is money they never actually paid in but was paid in by “rich” people.
By the way, whose money is it anyway? Who actually earned it?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by defrey12

That would all be fine and good if your example held water, but it doesn’t. You don’t actually think that REAL ESTATE is included in this equation, do you? It has always been taxed independently by county taxing authorities and has never been part of the income tax equation.

It absolutely is included. That is what "property" refers to in the bill, among other things. You have to look up the legal definition of terms, when you are reading legal documents. Dictionary definitions don't always match up.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

Just a guess here, but probably more than 99% of TV residents depend on Medicare and Social Security and yet vote for those who have this “dream” to eliminate both.

Should be interesting to see their reaction when entire neighborhoods of the Villages end up abandoned when homeowners try to sell, or die, or get put into assisted living, and no one can afford to buy the homes.

Thousands of people move here /because/ they are able to retire with a combination of pension and social security, and don't have to worry that their higher income forces them to pay $2000/month for their insurance premium.

Those people will not be able to move here, if they no longer have social security or medicare, and no expectation that they'll ever have it in the future.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Should be interesting to see their reaction when entire neighborhoods of the Villages end up abandoned when homeowners try to sell, or die, or get put into assisted living, and no one can afford to buy the homes.

Thousands of people move here /because/ they are able to retire with a combination of pension and social security, and don't have to worry that their higher income forces them to pay $2000/month for their insurance premium.

Those people will not be able to move here, if they no longer have social security or medicare, and no expectation that they'll ever have it in the future.

There will always be buyers at the right price points.

[Whitley]

How does one start a new post?

[cherylncliff]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Social Security and Medicare don't get paid through INCOME tax. They get paid through social security and medicare tax. Yes they all come from income, so yes etymologically they are all income taxes. But only one is -called- "Income Tax." The others are called FICA - which is federal insurance contributions act.

The act includes getting rid of payroll taxes, which fund social security and Medicare. It talks about reallocating part of the new taxes to cover those programs but not how much would be reallocatd. This is a very regressive tax that hits lower income wage earners.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Cheiro

A similar system as this is used in Europe. Unlike here in the US where a tax (sales and/or user) is added at point of ultimate consumer purchase, a tax is added as a good is created/manufactured, at each step along the way. From the processing of raw material, to each process as something is made a tax is added. The result is that taxes are rather "hidden" in the cost of the ultimate purchase price. Taxes of this kind are really "regressive" and hit those of low income much harder than those who are wealthy. This is why states controlled by the wealthy have sales taxes rather than income taxes. The income tax was designed to spread the burden of taxation more fairly, the more you make, the more you pay.

Many people will always tell you how WONDERFUL the 1940s through 1960s were. Remember the golden years of America when most everyone was a member of the MIDDLE CLASS and could afford to BUY a home and that was usually with only one person working? Notice the differences today. Yes, there have been some improvements over time. but some are SOMEWHAT superficial - like giant screen televisions and cars with greater horsepower. But, has the quality of life improved.......probably NOT. And that statement is quantifiable because there are world list of qualities for different countries - like in quality of life and other important factors the US was ranked in the top 10 in the 1950s and has dropped OUT and DOWN to being about 30th worldwide TODAY.

We all read that today's modern married couple has to have BOTH people with full-time jobs to even be considered in the US middle class. And recently the news media is talking about the house shortage and how rental units have their prices jacked up. A modern couple can NOT afford the DOWN PAYMENT on a home because the lack of NEW housing starts, which has driven the down payment to be in excess of what MOST middle-class citizens can POSSIBLY save up.

So we see the problem and we see the differences between today's era and the 1950s. So what is the answer ??? what is the WHY behind this social difference? The main answer is that simply the tax rates and brackets have changed and are LESS progressive .......thus favoring the WEALTHY even in states (NOT Florida) that have an income tax. Property taxes are also set low to favor the WEALTHY - that is why the US school system and students' test scores rank around 30th on a world list. And everyone wonders why technical workers in digital fields are hard to find in the US. So, we just roll them in from India and elsewhere.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

Let be honest here, no matter what system you put into place some well-paid accountant will find a legal or borderline legal way to have their client avoid paying their fair share. This is the American way. Most of the time when you call customer service you know when you're talking to a so call Bob, it's a guy in in India or look at some of those American products you have in your home with an American logo it which made in third world countries. The idea behind this is to make as much money as you can, as quickly as you can at any cost. No matter what system you put into place it won't make a difference. This is survival of the richest.

That IS pretty pessimistic. There is also the REALITY that there are MANY MORE people that are NOT, NOT in the uber 1% or the UBER- 10 %. The middle and lower class get TAKEN advantage of and it is their own fault and the fault of the DUMBED-DOWN secondary and primary EDUCATION system,
.........We are ALSO inundated with PROPAGANDA which confuses the average US citizen. In Finland, school children are taught how to recognize and fight misinformation. The US would do well to do the SAME!

The US would be a MUCH stronger country and get back into the top ten of countries in QUALITY of LIFE if its average citizen COULD differentiate and understand the difference between a PROGRESSIVE tax system and a FLAT tax system. ......And PS any system of anything has CRACKS and GRAY areas that can be exploited by people of ILL WILL. let us use Bernie Madoff as one famous example. And there will ALWAYS be TAX cheats. That is WHY the IRS needs a stronger budget. That will easily PAY for itself !!!!!!