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.At least it appears you are admitting that this silly talk of a ~19% revenue neutral FairTax rate is wrong. Baby steps...
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.
"At least it appears you are admitting that this silly talk of a ~19% revenue neutral FairTax rate is wrong. Baby steps..."
"Admitting ..."??? Not at all, I believe you've misread what the Kotilkoff/Suffolk paper actually indicates. It certainly indicates the revenue neutral rate would most likely be lower than the 23% rate when a reasonable dynamic analysis is done ... more like giant steps to a respectable tax system for this century.