Hey, wait a minute ... aren't you the one who just said:
"... You always change the question when you are shown to be wrong ... "
You said that when I WASN'T trying to change the question at all (you were) and now you're trying that very stunt yourself. Whoa, Nellie!!!
But your attempted "switch" shows that you know you've lost the argument ... and the term alpha you allude to as though it's a big deal is pretty meaningless since the paper says it can have the value zero (IOW, drop out of the equation). You still have nothing in the way of an argument and the sooner you admit it to yourself, the sooner we can stop wasting time on this nonsense,
"C07, G07, and GS07 include the FairTax, whether the monetary authorities adjust to the FairTax or not. If they don't, gross income declines (real income doesn't change). "
Stop the smoke-blowing since the paper also says:
"... We assume that the monetary authorities do not accommodate the adoption of the FairTax, which is to say that they restrain the growth of the money supply sufficiently to prevent market prices from rising. As mentioned, this is merely a simplifying assumption. We could just as well have allowed for monetary accommodation, so that there would be no fall in producer prices under the FairTax. Doing so, however, would merely have made the algebra more complicated without changing the results..."
All of that including your comments have nothing at all to do with the fact that the government taxable employer wages we have been discussing are taxed at the 23% rate - exactly as I have said for hundreds of posts. You may not know it, but economists do.