[lewislynn]

Simply put, In addition to the money sucked out of government employee's hands from the Fairtax when they spend it (it's a replacement tax, remember?), "any government" employee's wages salaries and benefits would also cost 30% more under the "Taxable Employer" clause.

If taxing government is a good idea for raising revenue, why not just tax government?

[groanup]

That's not an explanation. How would you create a consumption tax to replace the income tax? Or would you? The gov't taxes the wages it pays now. How would you segue that into a consumption tax?

[pigdog]

"... >"any government" employee's wages salaries and benefits would also cost 30% more under the "Taxable Employer" clause ... "

Untrue - both as shown in the paper and has been explained to you many, many times. Why continue to post something you know is not true?

The tax on governmental non-education employees is a tax paid by the government on the gross wages of those employees and it is 23% less the 7.65% ER FICA less another adjustment for the educational employees ER FICA that no longer is paid either. That is all accounted for in the 23% revenue neutral derivation the paper presents.

Actually taxing government IS a good idea and it's done at present (as has also been explained to you many times) but we've decided to shortcut all of that and just you pay the entire tax amount for all taxpayers ... OK???