[Your Nightmare]

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".

Inclusive or exclusive is the question whether you understand it or not. You are claiming the 23% rate is applied to government wages excluding the tax (the rate is 23% exclusive), the bill states that the 23% is applied to the amount including the tax (the rate is 23% inclusive).

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.

So you didn't use the exact words. Big deal. That's what you are talking about.

I have consistently referred to that tax as a 23% excise on gross wages of noneducational government employees.

So? What do I care if you refer to it as an excise? The bill doesn't.

And that's why the term "government consumption expenditures" is used as a term to make up the FairTax base.

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. "Government consumption expenditures" includes all expenditures, not just wages. Are they all taxes at 23% exclusive?

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

23% of gross wages excluding 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.

But you have not produced any language from the actual bill that states this and the calculations by both Kotlikoff and the AFT contradict your claim.

If you'd do more research, you'd find that most economists understand that the 23% number is as I've described it.

Most economists? Like who? The voices in your head?

[pigdog]

"So you didn't use the exact words. Big deal. That's what you are talking about."

No ... that's what YOU'RE talking about, not me.

""Government consumption expenditures" includes all expenditures, not just wages. Are they all taxes at 23% exclusive?"

No it does not include "all expenditures" at all but one of its primary components is government wages. The main part of those wages, as I've described, are taxed at the 23% rate of gross wages (which I've referred to as being much like an excise). Non wage expenditures are taxed (if purchased at retail) at a 23% tax inclusive rate (which means the retail price AND the tax amount are added - or thinking of it in the manner you prefer that the tax exclusive amount is added onto the untaxed retail price).

With the government as taxable employer, though, this same situation does not apply since there is no retail sale or retail price involved since it's not a sale of services at retail or perhaps you could think of it as the untaxed "retail" tax price amount (which doewsn't exist) being zero and only the tax (the 23%) is paid on the government output (the wages involved). I think it helps to think of it as an excise of 23% on gross wages.

You're welcome to call it "Santa's beard" or anything else that pleases you so long as a set of the described wages for the employees that totals $100,000 in gross wages results in a payment of $23,000 (less the adjustments mentioned in the other posts I've made on the subject) in FairTax.

"But you have not produced any language from the actual bill that states this and the calculations by both Kotlikoff and the AFT contradict your claim."

In fact I have - several times and from different sources of economists. One that I especially recall was the economist Michael Graetz who pushes a competing (and quite different) tax bill. He several times in the course of a debate stated the 23% figure on government wages. And he's opposed to the FairTax, preferring his own bill.