"Research just released (and supported by the AFT) by Kotlikoff using projected 2007 data and every possible positive assumption about the FairTax found that the 23% rate was not revenue neutral."
Misleading comments on several accounts:
1) Although AFFT might indeed LIKE the Kotlikoff/Suffolk study there is no indication that it was "supported by AFFT" as you claim .
2) Additionally the study does NOT make "every possible positive assumption" about the FairTax at all but merely some reasonable ones in line with known information and experience.
3) The paper - contrary to your assertion that the 23% rate was "not revenue neutral" - shows that the 23% rate is, indeed, very much in the running as the revenue neutral rate ... on any of several counts. For one thing, the study is a static analysis which by definition favors the status quo tax system. For another Congress could very easily decide to alter spending slightly to drop the calculated 23.82% rate to 23% or could merely retain spending at 2006 levels to do the same thing or could notice that a dynamic analysis would show that a 23% rate is actually higher than required to be revenue neutral.
In fact I even pointed out to you that the study shows that the realistic view of its revenue neutral rate is as it says:
"In practice, therefore, it would probably be possible to implement the FairTax at the 23% rate without any reduction in federal spending."
The fact that you chose to misinterpret the word "probably" to be something like "possibly" or "perhaps" does not alter the fact that "probably" means (per Merriam-Webster Online):
"insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt "
So we see that the paper is really saying that without much doubt the 23% rate will be workable as a revenue neutral rate even under static analysis.
For another Congress could very easily decide to alter spending slightly to drop the calculated 23.82% rate to 23% or could merely retain spending at 2006 levels to do the same thing or could notice that a dynamic analysis would show that a 23% rate is actually higher than required to be revenue neutral.At least it appears you are admitting that this silly talk of a ~19% revenue neutral FairTax rate is wrong. Baby steps...
You might as well make the arguement that there is no indication that bears crap in the woods. Kotlikoff is a paid for shill for the fairtax. Trying to pretend Kotlikoff is some neutral third party is just the typical honesty pigdog brings to the debate.