It does not go to the employee himself and never has - nor has anyone supporting the FairTax claimed that ... only you so far as I know;As usual your own words prove you know nothing. The CBO as well as other government bean counters all attribute the employer portion as employee wage base...SO does the Fairtax (HR25). In fact, though true to your schizo form you'll deny the facts, the Fairtax law specifically "determines" the sales tax rate to tax consumers the equivalent of 15.3% of the "wage base" that includes the employer half.
SECT. 904 Trust Fund Revenue (do you know what that means?)
`(d) Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Rate- The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the Calendar year for which it applies.`(e) Hospital Insurance Rate- The hospital insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The hospital insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 2.9 percent tax on the Medicare wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the calendar year for which it applies.
So the Fairtax "supporters" say the 100% paycheck includes only half of the payroll tax, yet the Fairtax "supporters" found it necessary to tax the consumer the equivalent of both halves...That, like the tax on government wages, salaries and benefits, is yet another Fairtax hidden tax increase.
nor has anyone supporting the FairTax claimed thatGo here where the Fairtax authors Dan R. Mastromarco and David R. Burton say: (Maybe they no longer support the Fairtax)
[23] "....Since the median family income of a married couple in 1995 was $47,129 according to the Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports (April 1997), let's further assume that that is the amount our couple earns.Schizo fool.-----
[26] If the $47,129 of our family's income was all wage income, then that couple would have paid $3,605 in employee payroll taxes on those wages. Note also that their wages were also about $3,605 lower because of the employer payroll tax. As noted earlier, economists generally believe that the employer share of the payroll tax is borne by the employee in the form of lower wages.
----
[28] Under the AFT Fair Tax plan, their disposable income will increase to $50,734 because of the repeal of all payroll and income taxes. .....
the first part of the post dealing with the entitlement trust fund (SS/MC) revenue has nothing to do with the claim you're making since those funds will be paid from the FairTax revenues just as they are at present from payroll taxes.
In the lower portion of your paste with the numbered paragraphs, you can't even get the paragraph numbers straight, let alone post meaningful information from paragraph number "[23}" (no such quote in that paragraph) which is incorrect (besides which it has nothing to do with the information that follows).
In paragraph "[26]" the author is pointing out a common prevailing opinion among economists at that time about the ER portion as he said earlier in:
"[17} ...In fact, a middle-class taxpayer in the 28 percent tax bracket and earning wages must earn $154,400 to buy that $100,000 house (making the favorable assumption that the employer share of the payroll tax is actually paid by the employer, although most economists think employees actually bear its burden), much more than under the 23 percent AFT sales tax."
In "[28]", then he goes on to show what including the ER portion going to the taxpayer would do to help the taxpayer - and it would, but only if that happens since it is still not certain what will occur with the ER portion nor is the author stating his opinion of what will happen with it. He's merely saying that IF it happens that way it will help the taxpayer and that's what the data he gives shows.
You can't even understand what is being said but prefer to misinterpret it to suit your own POV. You should note, Looey, that IF the ER portion goes to the worker, then his takehome is even greater than has generally been discussed on these threads lately - even by you. In fact, this entire paper you quote from is over a decade old and there has been a lot of economic water (and theory and discussion) under the bridge since then.
Perhaps you could find something more current? Using 10+ year old stuff sounds like a desperation tactic.