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.Uh huh and after the first year the unelected bureaucrats at Social Security could implement their new congressional taxing power and raise the rate to 25 or even 30% without a vote from congress.
Or pigdogs could fly.
"Uh huh and after the first year the unelected bureaucrats at Social Security could implement their new congressional taxing power and raise the rate to 25 or even 30% without a vote from congress."
Oddly enough (even though it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that your mythical "unelected bureaucrats" have no taxing power under the FairTax) they can merely specify the requirements under Social Security laws to ensure the legally required funding of same from tax revenue much as they do now. That's part of the S/S laws.
It does make a nice scare tactic on your part, though, for those who don't stop to consider what is involved.