No ... that's what YOU'RE talking about, not me.At this point, I don't think you know what you are talking about.
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).So show me where the AFT or Kotlikoff treated the wage expenditures different from non-wage expenditures.
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
Show me where in the bill where it says a good or service must be purchased at retail for the tax to be included in the "gross payment."
What the bill states is "The term 'gross payments' means payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes imposed by this title" and that "There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services. In the calendar year 2007, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service" and "the term 'service' shall include any service performed by an employee for which the employee is paid wages or a salary by a taxable employer."
The government is paying the employee for a taxable service. No where in the bill does it state that if the payment for a taxable service doesn't occur at retail, the gross payment doesn't include the sales tax. No where.
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.But it is 23%. Twenty-three percent including the sales tax. Don't tell me you were confused by someone quoting the 23% rate without specifying it was inclusive.
You can ask that question until you are blue in the face, I don't see an answer coming anytime soon. However, we could get into a serious debate whether Kotlikoff numbers are in a 'table' or whether they are in a 'spreadsheet listing' as pigdog insists you call them. That is almost as intriguing of the debate on whether these are an inclusive or exclusive sales tax or whether it is some 23% excise tax on gross wages, which seems to be one of pigdog's latest inventions to sidetrack the debate.
"... So show me where the AFT or Kotlikoff treated the wage expenditures different from non-wage expenditures ..."
They are treated exactly in the manner shown by the equation I pointed out in post #421 where all three terms are taxed at the 23% rate.
It's unfortunate that so many of you are unable to read the bill and understand what it actually says but it's fortunate that the economists can do so. When you say:
"What the bill states is "The term 'gross payments' means payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes imposed by this title" "
... the passage is certainly correct but you don't seem to wish to understand that the only thing "imposed and thereby included in the gross payments for taxable services" in this case is the 23% FairTax itself. There is no payment for taxable property or services. There is only the FairTax component.
Let me state it another way. There is no taxable purchase to add these taxes onto. These services are provided by government, not sold so there is nothing in the way of a payment amount to add the tax payment to ... IOW the only thing included as the "gross payment" are the taxes themselves. This merely means that the government as a taxable employer is not selling its employees services (but still provides them "free") but still must pay the tax
I've very thankful that you guys are not economists or everyone would be in serious economic straits - as would the country. Certainly Kotlikoff et al grasp the meaning of the bill.