[pigdog]

The contention of both of you has always been that the relevant language in the bill allows only an increase in the 23% rate by adjusting the two entitlement proportions only upward, thereby raising the 23% rate since the GRR is set at 14.91. You both continually blabbers about such a "rate increase" and attack me for "lying" to suggest any other possibility.

In my posts to you I have not addressed such a rate increase (the entitlement proportions) at all and do not consider it even a possibility due to the increased economic expansion caused by the bill. Instead of continually yapping about "liar" and trying to bolster your own egos by throwing personal attacks, why don't you show me by actual numerical examples how your desired scenario would occur with an increase in economic activity. Show what would need to happen to the two proportions in relation to the overall rate.

Also numerically show the circumstances required for the rise in the two proportions to create your "unelected bureaucrat scenario.

[Always Right]

The contention of both of you has always been that the relevant language in the bill allows only an increase in the 23% rate by adjusting the two entitlement proportions only upward, thereby raising the 23% rate since the GRR is set at 14.91.

Another bold face lie. I can post numerous places on this thread that shows otherwise. Here is one example in 464:

You are confused here. The 14.91 GRR rate is fixed by the fairtax. It can not change. The taxpayers would have to say nothing to lower the rate overall rate, it would automatically adjust lower if your scenario of the other rates going lower did come about

The rate can go up or down automatically. Quite adding more lies to your the mountain and trying to change the subject.