I grasps perfectly what you are trying to show, and it has nothing to do with the issue. What Laffer's dynamic analysis shows adds zero to the point. I am still have not sure you understand the overall fairtax rate changes. You are all over the place on that point. Reguardless, the fact is you denied something repeatedly that you actually did repeatedly and you will not admit it, as shown below again...
-------------------------------------
What's there to understand? Everybody understands. You clearly lied. It's all documented here.
PIGDOG post 473: "I've said nothing about any Congressional action in raising the rate since that will clearly not be required."
When in previous posts you most certainly did:
post 319 by pigdog: "The infamous "unelected bureaucrats raising taxes" ploy you've continually tried (unsuccessfully) to use isn't correct and never has been. They merely determine the split of tax revenue required to fund the S/S entitlement as required by S/S law - which it should be noted isn't part of the FairTax law at all. They have no power to raise (or lower) the FairTax rate ... that's what we pay the "big bux" to Congress for."
post 328 by pigdog: "Any change in the overall FairTax rate would have to be done by Congress, not some "unelected bureaucrat".
post 351 by pigdog: " And to change the FairTax rate it would, indeed, take congressional action."
post 368 bt pigdog: "This means that the remaining portion which is the General Revenue Rate will in effect increase since the other two have decreased and the statutory rate for all three combined must be 23% (or whatever the rate ends up as in the bill) unless changed by Congress."
Your lying butt is not getting the last word.
"What's there to understand? Everybody understands."
Obviously you DON'T understand which is indicated by your continuing to post the same nonsense with the name calling.
It's amazing that the Moderator doesn't ban you for your continued abusive posts to myself and others.
The mechanism is as I've shown in #577 and the comments there are relevant to the rate determination - despite the fact you don't understand what was said in the post.
It shows that precisely the opposite of what you and your colleagues contend:
"... #302 which said "... the law gives taxing power to SS bureaucrats ...". That is simply not true - they have no ability to change the FairTax rate at all (specified in Sec. 101) as I've shown here. Or his #233 which said "... after the first year the unelected bureaucrats at Social Security could implement their new congressional taxing power and raise the rate to 25 or even 30% without a vote from congress ..." which, again, is simply not the case as I've shown here."
Or perhaps you'd like to now pretend that you've never considered such positions of your colleagues to be correct?