"You are wrong. Deal with it. "
Glad to. First of all you should more properly have used the combined Federal and S&L figures rather than just Federal. But no matter, your error is the same anyway. From the current Kotlikoff/Suffolk paper in the section discussing collecting money with the FairTax, we find:
"... We know that the tax is levied on consumption: personal consumption and the consumption of federal, state and local governments ... "
Isn't it amazing that that is exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread - see post #316 for example which says the same thing.
And even the two sources you cite also show that the government consumption figures are used to calculate the tax base upon which the FairTax is imposed at 23%. that's the purpose of those tables - to derive the revenue generated at 23% or thereabouts depending upon which table you use. Thank you for providing them since it merely proves what I've been saying all along - the governmental wages are taxed at the basic FairTax rate. That's what the tables show whether you grasp that or not. They are not first adjusted or "grossed up" to be a higher figure at all.
Your original claim in post #305, then of:
"Oh, and BTW, both the AFT and Kotlikoff use 30% exclusive to determine the revenue generated by taxing the wages of government employees. Who are we to believe? The AFT and Kotlikoff, or pigdog? If it's 23% exclusive, as you claim, then their rate calculations are incorrect and would have to be adjusted up. "
And BTW I have never called the 23% excise on government gross wages anything but an excise (e.g., neither inclusive or exclusive). It is you opponents that try to bumfuzzle everyone by mixing up the usage and meaning of inclusive and exclusive. I have always said (and still do) that the tax imposed on those wages is 23% of gross wages (there is no nonsensical "grossing up" as you like to claim) and it shows in both the Tables you cite. It happens that both Kotlikoff and the AFFT agree with pigdog and we're all saying a 23% "excise" on gross wages.
I also do not find either number you cite of $273 or $326 gazillion (or whatever number of zeros it was) in the current Kotlikoff/Suffolk paper - but perhaps I missed it. In any event the rate calculations in both tables are just fine as they are.
If you'd like to now say that your use of 30% exclusive really meant 23% inclusive you're welcome to attempt that, but we both know that such was not the discussion. The discussion was the actual rate imposed on government non-educational gross wages ... and (is there an echo in here?) that rate is 23% of gross wages. An employee in that category having gross wages of $100,000 will have the government paying $23,000 as FairTax (and NOT any "grossed up" amount).
That wasn't the question. (You always change the question when you are shown to be wrong.) The question was is the 23% rate applied to government wages inclusive or exclusive of the tax!?! By including them in the FairTax base without any adjustment for the rate being 23% exclusive, they are clearly demonstrating that the rate applied to government wages is 23% inclusive, just like all the other consumption in the FairTax base.Isn't it amazing that that is exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread - see post #316 for example which says the same thing.Isn't it amazing that that is exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread - see post #316 for example which says the same thing.
And even the two sources you cite also show that the government consumption figures are used to calculate the tax base upon which the FairTax is imposed at 23%. that's the purpose of those tables - to derive the revenue generated at 23% or thereabouts depending upon which table you use.23% inclusive.
Thank you for providing them since it merely proves what I've been saying all along - the governmental wages are taxed at the basic FairTax rate.You've been saying it's 23% excluding the tax! That is not what the AFT and Kotlikoff are showing.
They are not first adjusted or "grossed up" to be a higher figure at all.They are treated like all other consumption in the FairTax base. The 23% rate is applied to an amount that includes the FairTax.
And BTW I have never called the 23% excise on government gross wages anything but an excise (e.g., neither inclusive or exclusive).You are saying that the 23% is applied to government wages excluding the tax. You are saying the 23% is exclusive whether you use that exact word or not.
I have always said (and still do) that the tax imposed on those wages is 23% of gross wages (there is no nonsensical "grossing up" as you like to claim) and it shows in both the Tables you cite. It happens that both Kotlikoff and the AFFT agree with pigdog and we're all sayingThe term "gross wages" doesn't appear in the text of the bill. Nothing remotely similar to what you are claiming appears in the text of the bill. You've made all of this up.
It happens that both Kotlikoff and the AFFT agree with pigdog and we're all saying a 23% "excise" on gross wages.No they don't. They show government wages being treated like all other consumption in the FairTax base - with the 23% being applied to wages including the tax!
I also do not find either number you cite of $273 or $326 gazillion (or whatever number of zeros it was) in the current Kotlikoff/Suffolk paper - but perhaps I missed it. In any event the rate calculations in both tables are just fine as they are.Take the government consumption expenditures numbers and multiply by the exclusive FairTax rate and you get the amount of FairTax that would be due on those expenditures.