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.
"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!?!"
Indeed, that was very much the question and I note that you now attempt to deflect the question (as you claim I do) by pretending the entire discussion was about the terms "inclusive" or "exclusive".
The question wasn't about that at all (though you're now trying to make it that) nor did I use either the term in describing the tax imposed on government as a taxable employer. I have consistently referred to that tax as a 23% excise on gross wages of noneducational government employees. And that's why the term "government consumption expenditures" is used as a term to make up the FairTax base.
Perhaps if you read my #316 it will help you to understand why the government employees in this category who have, say a set of gross wages that total $100,000 will cause the government to pay $23,000 in FairTax (less the adjustments noted in #316, 319, and 339 of this thread.
"You've been saying it's 23% excluding the tax! "
Not at all - I;m saying that 23% of the gross wages (less the adjustmenttioned in a couple of the posts above) IS the tax ... in effect, an excise on gross wages. There is no tax amount of a retail sale to be incorporated since government services are not (overtly) charged for as would be the case in a retail sale situation - they are "provided" to us lucky citizens ... aren't you glad???
Your claim, then, that:
"... They show government wages being treated like all other consumption in the FairTax base - with the 23% being applied to wages including the tax! ... "
... is meaningless since there IS no retail sale on which to apply a "tax" - and that is why government taxable employers are handled differently than retail sales or even taxable employers in the private economy. They are certainly not "treated like all other consumption" as I've clearly pointed out.
As a side note (not that it really matters) your directions for deriving the numbers you claim do not result in those numbers, but it's meaningless since the real issue is as I've described it here again - that the government taxes the pertinent wages at a 23% rate much like an excise tax. If you'd do more research, you'd find that most economists understand that the 23% number is as I've described it.