"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."
You've made allusions to similar observations by Kotlikoff in the past but when asked for a link you have never provided one. Since you now refer to that data or study as "research just released and supported by the AFFT", how about providing a link to the AFFT website showing this?
Or do you perhaps not have one???
Everything I know about the effects of the Bush tax cuts, etc. leads me to believe that revenue neutrality can be achieved at a lower rate than 23%. My best guess is under 20%.
But it's been awhile since I've seen studies on this aspect of the FairTax proposal.
Anything new on this front?
The writer, and several of the people he quotes, act as if the needed rate to maintain revenue neutrality is a bad reflection on the FairTax.
As you know, that's a dishonest crock.
"How you tax" and "spending" are two separate issues, to those who care about an honest presentation of this issue.
With the current system, the level of federal spending continues to be masked behind the hidden nature of the income tax in its various incarnations.
Under the FairTax, it all becomes visible, apparent.
Which of course fills the statists with dread...
You've made allusions to similar observations by Kotlikoff in the past but when asked for a link you have never provided one. Since you now refer to that data or study as "research just released and supported by the AFFT", how about providing a link to the AFFT website showing this? Or do you perhaps not have one???I don't have a link to the study on the AFT website. Like the other studies they have paid for, they have chosen not to put it on their website. Curious, huh?