I'm sorry to see that you don't understand what the term "in practice" means.Well when you've finished with your usual attempts at ridicule you can define what it means in context of the quote you posted...Or maybe that would be too revealing.
Maybe "in practice" means things that "could" be done in your dream world like spending freezes and spending cuts to accommodate your 23% rate rather than practical applications.
It's more than just a little telling that you have to call for hypothetical dream world applications to accomodate your 23% revenue neutral rate since this is the first time I recall you or any other Fairtaxer, including AFFT, ever calling for spending freezes or cuts (Oh wait, don't tell me. Spending cuts have been called for by many Fairtax supporters on many of these threads..or words to that effect). Now you only want cuts and freezes to protect your lies about an arbitrary rate.
"... I'm sorry to see that you don't understand what the term "in practice" means.Well when you've finished with your usual attempts at ridicule you can define what it means in context of the quote you posted...Or maybe that would be too revealing ..."
No "attempts at ridicule" involved. I'm very sad to see (as I said) that you don't know what "in practice" means as it is really quite clear in situ and needn't be clarified further. I think most people would understand what it meant but you don't seem to, that's all.
As are most FairTax supporters, I'm certainly in favor of reduced government spending on any level and think all governments spend far more than necessary since they have not been restrained enough by taxpayers. That may very well be because many taxpayers perceive that others, not they, pay the taxes. With the FairTax, that will change greatly and a tax rate change (up or down) will affect each taxpayer.
" Now you only want cuts and freezes to protect your lies about an arbitrary rate."
There are no "lies" involved and no "arbitrary rates" since the FairTax is a carefully-derived revenue neutral rate as shown by the paper - which also shows that the resulting rate when the bill is acted upon by Congress - will most likely be less than 23%.