Posted on 04/23/2004 4:39:23 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
A $5,OOO Cat? The NRST and Real Estate
By Steve Hayes President, Citizens for an Alternative Tax System
Once Johnny came home with a puppy that he had found at the park. His father told Johnny that he couldn't keep the dog. Johnny protested but his father was unrelenting.
Tearfully, Johnny agreed. He took the puppy and left and was gone about an hour. When Johnny returned his father asked what became of the puppy. Johnny said that he sold it for $10,000.
The father demanded an explanation. Johnny said that he had gone to the neighbor's home and sold the puppy for two $5,000 cats.
Many in Washington explain everything that they do for us in glowing terms. They refer to the great benefits reserved for us in the tax code.
However, often when we examine the manna from Washington we find that the supposed benefit isn’t as good as we were promised. The benefit from Washington all too often really resembles one of the boy's $5,000 cats.
An example of this is the mortgage interest deduction. The fact that this benefit will be repealed by the national retail sales tax ("NRST") is one of the major objections used by opponents of the NRST.
Is the mortgage interest deduction really a "great" benefit or a $5,000 cat? The mortgage interest deduction is a provision in the federal income tax code which permits the deduction of the amount of mortgage interest paid on your home mortgage from taxable income, the amount of income on which federal income taxes are calculated.
Washington bureaucrats and realtors trumpet the tax advantages that accompany home purchases. "Buy a home and get a 'tax shelter' like the 'big guys' ". Alas, the "mortgage interest tax shelter" is, for many Americans, a $5,000 cat.
Here is an illustration of the home mortgage deduction. Fred and Joan Jones have two children and an annual income of $60,000. On January 1st, they buy a home a home for $140,000, pay $14,000 down and obtain a $126,000 30-year mortgage at 7 percent interest. The monthly mortgage payments are $838. Fred and Joan will pay mortgage payments of $10,059 in year one. Of the $10,059, $8,780 is interest and $1,279 is principal, which under the present federal income tax is not deductible. {1}
At the end of the year, eager to take advantage of this great "tax shelter, the Jones family deducts the mortgage interest paid of $8,780 from its taxable income of $60,000 and $10,600 of personal exemptions {2} leaving a new taxable income of $40,620. By deducting the $8,780 of mortgage interest the Jones family will pay $6,094 in federal income tax. {3}
At first glance, this would seem to be a real benefit. Fred and Joan were able to reduce their taxable income by the amount of the mortgage interest they paid. They know that their top marginal federal income tax rate is 15% so they appear to have received 15% of $8,780, or $1317, of the money that they would have paid in federal income taxes back from the government. However, in order to utilize the "mortgage interest tax shelter", they must file a 1040 return and itemize deductions. Interestingly, most real estate agents don't explain this fact but, without itemizing, the Jones family would have been able to take what is called the standard deduction that is available to everyone whether they pay mortgage interest or not.
"65,400,000 Americans are home owners but only 29,396,016 Americans take the mortgage interest deduction. For many of these 29,396,016 Americans the benefits of the mortgage interest deduction are marginal and more illusory than real."
If they had not deducted the $8,780 in mortgage interest payments but simply taken the standard deduction, Fred and Joan would have paid $6,551 in federal income taxes. This means that the mortgage deduction actually only saved them $457 in federal income taxes over what they would have paid if there was no mortgage deduction. On top of this, filing a return and taking the standard deduction generally means that you are less attractive to the IRS for an audit. So, the Jones family filed a more complicated return and increased their odds of an IRS audit to save $457. {4}
Another point that needs to be understood is the idea of "after tax expenditures." These are expenditures which, unlike the mortgage interest deduction, are not subtracted from our taxable income when computing taxes. These are items for which we have to earn enough to enable us to pay the income tax and still retain the net amount to be spent. Since the Jones family is in the 15% marginal tax bracket, in order to have a dollar to spend they will have to earn $1.18 and pay 18¢ in federal income tax (15% of $1.18) to net $1.00. As stated earlier, $1,279 of the total mortgage payments in year one is principal which is not deductible. The $1,279 of principal payments in year one is paid from the money that Fred and Joan have after payment of their taxes. To Fred and Joan, this means that they had to earn $1,505, pay $226 in federal income taxes (their marginal income tax rate is 15%) in order to net $1,279, the amount they paid in principal on their mortgage.
To recap, Fred and Joan have earned $60,000 and the examples shown in figure 1 illustrate the actual benefits they received from the mortgage interest deduction.
With Mortgage Deduction Without Mortgage Deduction
$60,000 $60,000
- 4,590 FICA {5} - 4,590 FICA
- 6,094 Federal Income Tax - 6,551 Federal Income Tax
- 10,059 Mortgage Payment - 10,059 Mortgage Payment
$39,257 Net Amount Remaining $38,800 Net Amount Remaining
Figure 1.
Assuming their income goes up at 3% per year, in 5 years they will be making $67,531 but will only be saving $406 more than they would be saving if they utilized the standard deduction. {6}
The amount of income tax savings is decreasing because the amount of interest is less each year and the amount of principal increases each year. The amount of mortgage interest paid in the fifth year will be $8,367 and the amount of principal will be $1,692.
The Jones family cash flow will then be:
$67,531 - 5,166 FICA {7} - 8,245 Federal Income Tax - 10,059 Mortgage Payment $44,061 Net Amount Remaining
However, if Fred and Joan want to actually own their home they will see a rapidly decreasing benefit from the mortgage interest deduction as they pay down the loan. In fact, by the 14th year, it will be better for Fred and Joan to take the standard deduction of $6,900 rather than the standard deduction of $6,900 rather than the mortgage interest deduction of $6,888. {8} Moreover, if Fred and Joan had purchased a home with a mortgage of $99,000 instead of $126,000, they would have saved nothing from the mortgage interest deduction.
This is one of the primary reasons that 65,400,000 Americans are home owners {9} but only 29,396,016 Americans take the mortgage interest deduction.{10} For many of these 29,396,016 Americans the benefits of the mortgage interest deduction are, like for Fred and Joan, marginal and more illusory than real.
If they actually pay the mortgage on their $140,000 home, Fred and Joan will have paid $175,781 in interest and $126,000 in after-tax principal for which they would have had to earn $148,000 and pay $22,000 of federal income taxes to net $126,000.
Contrast the above scenario with the situation if Fred and Joan purchased their home after the passage of the NRST using the same purchase price and 30-year mortgage at 7% interest.
Fred and Joan will receive their income without any income tax withholding. They, not the bureaucrats in Washington, will decide how much income tax they pay by how much they elect to spend on retail purchases. No longer are Fred and Joan treated as children or mentally deficient adults but as adults capable of making their own decisions.
Fred and Joan receive $58,234 in income, which is the earnings of $60,000 reduced by $4,590, the amount of the FICA withheld and increased by $2,824, the amount of the NRST rebate {11} to a family of four. Like under the federal income tax, the NRST will tax the principal of the house purchased by Fred and Joan. Under H.R. 2001, the bill introduced by Congressmen Dan Schaefer (R-CO) and Billy Tauzin (R-LA) that replaces the income tax and the IRS with an NRST collected by the states, the $140,000 purchase price of the house will be taxed by the NRST, resulting in a tax owed of $24,706. This tax can be paid either at the time the house is purchased or over a 30-year period. If the election is made to pay the $24,706 over 30 years then Fred and Joan will pay $73 per month or $876 per year.
The $8,780 of mortgage interest will not be subject to the NRST. {12} At the end of year one we see the results shown in figure 2.
NRST Federal Income Tax
$60,000 $60,000
- 4,590 FICA - 4,590 FICA
- 876 NRST Payment on the Principal - 10,059 Mortgage Payment
- 10,059 Mortgage Payment $44,991 Net Amount before Income Tax
+ 2,824 NRST Rebate - 6,094 Federal Taxes
$47,299 Net Amount before NRST --
- 6,345 Estimated NRST {13} --
$40,954 Net Amount Remaining $39,257 Net Amount Remaining
Figure 2.
After 5 years under the NRST, and assuming a 3% increase in their income, Fred and Joan would have the following net amounts of money under the NRST and the present income tax as shown in figure 3.
NRST Federal Income Tax
$67,531 $67,531
- 5,166 FICA - 5,166 FICA
- 876 NRST Payment on Principal - 10,059 Mortgage Payment
- 10,059 Mortgage Payment $52,306 Net Amount before Income Tax
+ 2,824 NRST Rebate - 8,245 Federal Income Tax
$54,254 Net Amount Remaining --
- 7,388 Estimated NRST {14} --
$46,866 Net Amount Remaining $44,061 Net Amount Remaining
Figure 3.
Now, we have assumed that the interest rate to be paid by Fred and Joan would be the same under the present income tax and the NRST.
This is really not the case. Economists agree that interest rates under the NRST will decline by at least as much as the difference between the municipal bond rate and the standard, non-tax free bonds. Some believe that the reduction will be much greater as America becomes the greatest place for investment and funds flood into the United States from all around the world. However, if we just assume the smaller reduction this will mean that the mortgage rate will be not 7% but 5.5%. {15}
This would mean that the mortgage payments and total cost of the mortgage for Fred and Joan would be reduced. Below are comparisons of the present income tax and the NRST with the lower interest rate. Here is a recap of the new costs and the comparison shown in figure 4.
NRST Federal Income Tax
$60,000 $60,000
- 4,590 FICA - 4,590 FICA
- 876 NRST Payment on the Principal - 10,059 Mortgage Payment
- 8,585 Mortgage Payments $45,351 Net Amount before Income Tax
+ 2,824 Rebate - 6,094 Federal Income Tax
$48,773 Net Remaining before NRST --
- 6,166 Estimated NRST {16} --
$42,607 Net Amount Remaining $39,257 Net Amount Remaining
Figure 4.
This means that the total cost of paying off the mortgage under the NRST is $131,548 of interest, $126,000 of principal and $24,705 NRST tax for a total of $282,253. Contrast this to $323,781, the amount that would have to be earned and spent under the federal income tax, a difference of
$41,258.
Yet another factor we have not addressed is that under the NRST, it will be much easier for Fred and Joan to save the money needed to purchase their home. Under the present income tax in order for Fred and Joan to save the $10,000 that they need for the down payment on their home, they will have to earn $11,765 and pay income taxes of $1,765 to net $10,000. If they deposit the money in a savings account then the interest will also be taxable.
However, under the NRST, Fred and Joan will only have to earn $10,000 and save that amount because earnings are not taxable under the NRST. Any interest earned on a savings or investment will not be taxed under the NRST. The NRST gives Fred and Joan the ability to keep all the money that they don't spend whether the source is earnings or a return on their savings and investment.
There are a number of other things that we have not taken into account when we do our comparison. The foremost of these is that the economic studies that have been done on the affect on the rate of growth in the economy after the enactment of the NRST all show increased rates of growth and increased rates of productivity. This is very important because increases in income are derived from increases in productivity.
What does the increased economic growth mean to each of us? If the economy had grown at the same rate since 1973 as it did prior to 1973, the average family would have an additional $10,000 per year in disposable income.
It is time for Americans to quit accepting $5,000 cats and demand a tax system that really works for America, the NRST.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES
{1} This is omitting the cost of any private mortgage insurance.
{2} Each family member receives a $2650 personal exemption or $10,600 for a family of four.
{3} For purposes of our example we are not considering any deductions that might be available would increase the amount of itemized deductions because these vary widely among taxpayers.
{4} The $457 in savings would be increased if there were additional itemized deductions like real estate taxes, state income taxes and charitable donations. For example, if Fred and Joan had an additional $1000 of deductions then they would have saved an additional $150 in their 15% income tax bracket.
{5} Federal Insurance Contributions Act
{6} This actual savings from the mortgage deduction will likely be less because the standard deduction will also have been increased.
{7} This assumes that the FICA will be assessed on $67,531.
{8} Again, this is assuming that the standard deduction for a family--of four remains at $6,900 which it will not. Therefore, the standard deduction will likely exceed the mortgage interest several years earlier.
{9} U.S. Census Bureau
{10} Statistics of Income Bulletin, published by the Internal Revenue Service
{11} The NRST rebate is determined by family size. It provides a rebate to Americans equal to the NRST on their purchases up to the poverty level. For a family of four this would be a rebate on the first $16,000 of purchases.
{12} Fred and Joan are paying the NRST on the principal over 30 years.
{13} Fred and Joan would not pay NRST on the FICA payment, the NRST payment and the mortgage payment. We are assuming that the family has savings or expenditures of an additional $5,000 not subject to the NRST - like charitable donations, education expenses or savings.
{14} We are making the same assumptions as in footnote 13.
{15} Many economists believe that the mortgage interest rate will likely be even lower because of the increase of savings and the infusion of vast amounts of capital from around the world.
{16} This assumes that the family saves or spends a total of $5,000 on items not subject to the NRST.
I'd prefer a higher NRST rate to keeping the payroll tax.
Don't worry the NRST is already higher, the advertized rate of 23% inclusive, is really a 30% tax on your goods and services. If you bought a new $300,000 house, you would have to pay an extra $90,000 in taxes. The mortgage exemption is no big deal, but the 30% sales tax (which they twist and say is 23%) is a big deal.
If you bought an item that costs $10, you would have to give the cashier $13. How they come up with 23%, is that the $3 tax is 23% of the final cost of $13. But it is really a 30% sales tax if you wish to discuss things honestly. I build new homes, and I can say with 100% certainty, if they added 30% sales tax on to the cost of new homes, I would be out of business.
The nrst does repeal FICA.
SS benefits are paid out of sales tax revenues instead of having a payroll tax.
NRST=NO PAYROLL TAX.
Right. It would be stupid to think this would go anywhere if prices were to rise.
But prices won't rise under the nrst. Prices remain stable.
How stupid would it be to try to put an additional tax on us? The nrst is not an additional tax, it's a replacement tax.
Prices will remain stable. The amount of tax currently being paid is the same amount that will be paid under the nrst. The beg difference is that with the nrst, you can see what portion of prices is actually federal tax. These days, that amount is hidden.
I know every cent I spend on federal taxes (including both my personal return and all my company's payroll taxes) and on compliance costs, and they are closer to 3% of my gross sales, not 30%. There is no way I could come up with 30% savings to offset this. I really don't care what your NRST pointie-headed experts say.
Well now we're agreeing on something.
Yes, all of the experts point to a major component in prices of goods and services that comes to 22% tax inclusive (that's 28% tax exclusive).
Why don't you read the research and report on it's errors? That would be information we would all be thankful for.
BTW you're "forgetting" about a lot of tax costs you incur that would be eliminated under the nrst. It is likely that you, like many, have been duped into thinking that if you don't see it then you don't pay it.
$10.
The sales person would then remit $2.30 of that to the government as sales tax receipts.
If I could only figure out a way to build used houses, you would have a point. Unfortunately, my new houses loaded with a 30% tax will have to compete against thost tax-free used houses. From a builder of new homes, the NRST sucks BIG TIME.
Do you use any supplies or equipment? Any electricity or other utility? Staff? Transportation? Advertising?
It is honest, selling a 30% sales tax as a 23% sales tax? It is honest, in your example to include the employer's share of payroll tax as part of the employees tax but not part of their income? It is honest to think that someone who grosses $60K per year pays anywhere close to $12K in federal income taxes? I think the 10% figure is even high once you consider all the deductions.
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.