That makes the "net" price change for "Joe" $3.79 (3.79%) less than the current price. Again, still within the +/- 5% prediction.
BTW, the example in #32 assumes the bill's current 23% inclusive / 29.87% exclsuive NRST rate. if, however, the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, the revenue-neutral rate drops to (I beleive) 19.2% inclusive / 23.76% exclusive.No it wouldn't. 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.
Because this is a wholly NEW tax and not now figured into State and Local tax rates, S&L governments will have to increase the taxes they collect from their taxpayers to pay the bill.
As calculated by your sources, even at the 19.2% inclusive rate, State and Local governments would have to come up with an additional $190 Billion they do not now have. That will come from S&L tax increases, on average, increases of 17% in the amount of S&L tax collected; rate impacts will vary widely by jurisdiction.
Quoting the Federal Rate alone when talking of the FairTax is telling only part of the story. In total, after the impact of S&L taxation is included, the "effective rate" on people is significantly greater. Normalizing to a simple "taxpayer" rate that recognizes that taxing S&L governments is just an indirect tax on people, the 19.2% rate you cite would actually bite into the taxpayer to the tune of a 24% ti rate. At the currently advertized 23% ti rate, the taxpayer would experinence an effect of more like a tax inclusive rate of 28%.
Remember, governments don't pay taxes, people do.
BTW, the example in #32 assumes the bill's current 23% inclusive / 29.87% exclsuive NRST rate. if, however, the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, the revenue-neutral rate drops to (I beleive) 19.2% inclusive / 23.76% exclusiveSo you Fairtaxers are now saying the Bush tax cuts have reduced, not increased revenue.