"Of course you haven't been able to show where either the AFT or Kotlikoff treated government wages any different than their other consumption.Something is "pathological" all right but it's your attempts at obfuscation and word games in your attempts to defeat the FairTax by any means - no matter what.Pigdog, your inability to concede even the smallest point is pathological. "
I clearly showed that the paper by Kotlikoff et al showed that all government non-educational wages were taxed at a 23% rate on gross wages and that this was encompassed by the 23% revenue neutral rate.
To a man (sorry, lucysmom you Squirrels insisted that I was wrong, crazy, etc. hurling insult after insult and personal attack after personal attack at me (much as you're now attempting) all the while insisting that the rate was 29.87% (or typically more with some of the more rabid Squirrels).
Are you now ready to publicly admit that the rate in question is 23% (and never mind trying your little "is it inclusive or exclusive" obfuscation again) and that you were ALL wrong??? Talk about "pathological"!!!
Are you now ready to publicly admit that the rate in question is 23% (and never mind trying your little "is it inclusive or exclusive" obfuscation again)No it's 30% (That's what AFFT says the rate is) and never mind trying your little "is it inclusive or exclusive" obfuscation.
I clearly showed that the paper by Kotlikoff et al showed that all government non-educational wages were taxed at a 23% rate on gross wages and that this was encompassed by the 23% revenue neutral rate.No you didn't. Kotlikoff treats government wages exactly like all other government consumption - with the tax being part of the gross payment.