I am assuming you mean by that that if there are offsetting decreases in the rate then there is no total increase.
But the so-called "Fair Tax" eliminated any preferential treatment for home loan interest and medical insurance premiums altogether.
If the reduction of preferential treatment is, in Boortz's words, a tax increase. What is the elimination of these preferential treatments? It must be a tax increase magnitudes of order greater than the commission recommends. But that is precisely what the so-called "Fair Tax" does. So Boortz is decrying the recommendations of the commission as a tax increase while simultaneously advocating even a higher tax increase.
Are you sure you want to stick with that statement? Are you sure you don't understand, as you seemed to in your first statement, that replacing those other taxes, the one's that are eliminated, with the new NRST is an offset monetarily? It is a complete change in government philosophy that is at stake, not the money. The money stays the same. How do you understand it in one case and not the other?
When it comes to tax policy, though, Boortz is often incoherent.
Be careful what you say to the Kettle, Mr. Pot.
I am on record saying that Boortz's comments are inaccurate because he only focuses on one thing (reduced deductions on current income tax). My position is that the whole package must be considered as a whole.
Even though we've established that Boortz's claim is not accurate because he did not consider the impact of the whole proposal by the committee, let's look to see if Boortz's (inaccurate) claim is internally consistent.
Reducing deductions is a tax increase (inaccurate, but stay with me). However, the NRST eliminates deductions. If a reduction of deductions is a tax increase, then the elimination of deductions must be a larger tax increase. That is why I said his argument is incoherent. The mere fact that he is an NRST advocate strongly implies that his statements will be inaccurate, too.